Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:39:31.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Access and Mobility within a New Model of Supported Housing for People with Neurotrauma: A Pilot Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2016

Libby Callaway ,
Kate Tregloan ,
Gavin Williams  and
Ross Clark
Libby Callaway*
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, Monash University, Frankston, Australia Summer Foundation Ltd, Blackburn, Australia
Kate Tregloan
Affiliation:
Faculty of Art Design + Architecture, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia
Gavin Williams
Affiliation:
Physiotherapy Department, Epworth Hospital, Richmond, Australia Physiotherapy Department, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Ross Clark
Affiliation:
School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Libby Callaway, Occupational Therapy Department, Monash University, PO Box 527, Frankston, Victoria, 3199, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Objectives: (1) Evaluate the features of purpose-built apartment living on access, environmental control, and home and community mobility of people living with neurotrauma and (2) Examine tenant perceptions of those features.

Research design: Observational case series pilot study. Setting: Three apartments within a residential development in Melbourne, Australia. Participants: Three males (aged 30–55 years) with traumatic brain and/or spinal cord injury living in the three separate apartments.

Method and procedures: Measures: Two-published measures of user experience of built and technology environments, coupled with customised interdisciplinary post-occupancy evaluation (POE) methods and GPS-enabled mobility tracking. Analysis: Measures completed per manual guidelines and data reported descriptively. Customised measured drawings produced to represent tenants’ physical access and mobility. GPS community mobility data plotted on Google Earth.

Results: Built design features which enabled access and mobility included linear paths of travel, well-located furnishings, and joinery design that allowed approach from either side using a wheelchair. Personal home furnishing choices posed barriers to physical access. Home automation technologies positively influenced participants’ sense of control and independence, but posed learning challenges. Close proximity of housing to accessible public transport and services enabled community travel options.

Conclusion: Findings from this pilot study indicate the combination of housing location, design and technologies used, together with availability of local community services, provides an acceptable level of environmental control, access, mobility and tenant experience. Further research is required to determine validity of the novel measures used, and deliver rigorous research design to evaluate those features most important in achieving optimal outcomes.

Keywords

Housingdesignindependencemobility
Type
Articles
Information
Brain Impairment , Volume 17 , Issue 1: Physical Activity in Neurological Populations , March 2016 , pp. 64 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Access Economics. (2009). The economic cost of spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/about-the-tac/our-organisation/research/tac-neurotrauma-research/vni/the20economic20cost20of20spinal20cord20injury20and20traumatic20brain20injury20in20australia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Access Economics (2009). The economic cost of spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury in Australia. Retrieved 2 March 2015, from https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/about-the-tac/our-organisation/research/tac-neurotrauma-research/vni/the20economic20cost20of20spinal20cord20injury20and20traumatic20brain20injury20in20australia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Aplin, T., de Jonge, D., & Gustafsson, L. (2014). Understanding home modifications impact on clients and their family's experience of home: A qualitative study. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 62 (2), 123–131.Google Scholar
Bonyhady, B. (2014). The National Disability Insurance Scheme: A catalyst for large scale, affordable and accessible housing for people with disability. Paper presented at the Community Housing Federation of Australia Conference, Canberra, Australia. Retrieved from http://chfa.com.au/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/docs/bonyhady_bruce_-_presentation_-_chfa_ndis_forum_-_27_march_2014.pdf.Google Scholar
Callaway, L., Winkler, D., Sloan, S., Osborn, W., Pattuwage, L., & Pitt, V. (2013). Models of supported accommodation for people with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review. Melbourne, Australia: Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research.Google Scholar
Clark, R., Weragoda, N., Paterson, K., Telianidis, S., & Williams, G. (2014). A pilot investigation using global positioning systems into the outdoor activity of people with severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 11 (1), 37.Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). The senate economic references committee: out of reach? The Australian housing affordability challenge. Canberra, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
Crews, D., & Zavotka, S. (2006). Aging, disability, and frailty: implications for universal design. Journal of Physiological Antropology, 25, 113–118.Google Scholar
Currin, M., Comans, T., Haines, T., & Heathcote, K. (2012). Staying safe at home. Home environmental audit recommendations and uptake in an older population at high risk of falling. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 31 (2), 90–95.Google Scholar
Demers, L., Monette, M., Descent, M., Jutai, J., & Wolfson, C. (2002). The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS): Translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Canadian-French version. Quality of Life in Residential Settings, 11 (6), 583–592.Google Scholar
Department of Social Services. (2010). National Disability Strategy 2010–2020. Retrieved from http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/disability-and-carers/program-services/government-international/national-disability-strategyGoogle Scholar
Fange, A., & Iwarsson, S. (2005). Changes in accessibility and usability in housing: an exploration of the housing adaptation process. Occupational Therapy Journal, 12 (1), 44–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, G. (2004). The residential environment impact survey. Developmental Disabilities Special Interest Section Quarterly, 27 (3), 1–4.Google Scholar
Fisher, G., & Kayhan, E. (2012). Developing the residential environment impact survey instruments through faculty-practitioner collaboration. Occupational Therapy Health Care, 26 (4), 224–239.Google Scholar
Gelderblom, G., de Witte, L., Jutai, J., & Day, H. (2002). Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability, 14 (3), 107–112.Google Scholar
Gitlin, L., Winter, M., Dennis, M., Corcoran, M., Schinfeld, S., & Hauck, W. (2006). A randomized trial of a multicomponent home intervention to reduce functional difficulties in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 54 (5), 809–816.Google Scholar
Hammel, J., Magasi, S., Heinemann, A., Gray, D., Stark, S., Kisala, P., . . . Hahn, , , E. (2015). Environmental barriers and supports to everyday participation: A qualitative perspective from people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96, 578–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, J., Bell, K., Powell, J., Behr, J., Dunn, E., Dikmen, S., & Bombardier, C. (2010). A randomized controlled trial of exercise to improve mood after traumatic brain injury. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2 (10), 911–919.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Y., & Lenker, J. (2006). The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS): Translation and psychometric evaluation of a Chinese (Taiwanese) version. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology, 1 (1–2), 49–57.Google Scholar
Johansson, K., Lilja, M., Petersson, I., & Borell, L. (2007). Performance of activities of daily living in a sample of applicants for home modification services. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14, 44–53.Google Scholar
Jones, R., Chesters, J., & Fletcher, M. (2003). Make yourself at home: people living with psychiatric disability in public housing. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 7, 67–79.Google Scholar
Jutai, J., & Day, H. (1996). Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9 (2), 159–168.Google Scholar
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design research through practice: from the lab, field, and showroom. Waltham, MA: Elsevier Inc.Google Scholar
McLachlan, R., Gilfillan, G., & Gordon, J. (2013). Deep and persistent disadvantage in Australia: Productivity Commission staff working paper. Canberra, Australia: Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2013). National disability insurance scheme act 2013. Canberra, Australia: Author Retrieved from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013A00020/Download.Google Scholar
Ocepek, J., Roberts, A., & Vidmar, G. (2013). Evaluation of treatment in the smart home IRIS in terms of functional independence and occupational performance and satisfaction. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2013, 1–10.Google Scholar
Parkinson, S., Fisher, G., & Fisher, J. (2011). The residential environment impact survey – short form (UK Version 2.2). Retrieved from www.moho.uic.edu/REISinformation.htmlGoogle Scholar
Rand, D., Eng, J., Tang, P., Jeng, J., & Hung, C. (2009). How active are people with stroke?: use of accelerometers to assess physical activity. Stroke, 40 (1), 163–168.Google Scholar
Sloan, S., Callaway, L., Winkler, D., McKinley, K., & Ziino, C. (2012). Accommodation outcomes and transitions following community-based intervention for individuals with acquired brain injury. Brain Impairment, 13 (1), 24–43. doi: 10.1017/BrImp.2012.5Google Scholar
Tanner, B., Tilse, C., & de Jonge, D. (2008). Restoring and sustaining home: the impact of home modifications on the meaning of home for older people. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 22 (3), 195–215.Google Scholar
Transport Accident Commission. (2011). Residential Independence Pty Ltd (RIPL). Retrieved from http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/content/content/what-the-tac-pays-for/treatment-and-support-services/residential-independence-pty-ltdGoogle Scholar
Tregloan, K., Callaway, L., Meyer, B., Wood, R., & Ianello, N. (2014). RIPL Project One: post-occupancy built and technology design evaluation. Melbourne, Australia: Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research.Google Scholar
Tudor-Locke, C., Burkett, L., Reis, J., Ainsworth, B., Macera, C., & Wilson, D. (2005). How many days of pedometer monitoring predict weekly physical activity in adults? Preventive Medicine, 40 (3), 293–298.Google Scholar
Verdonschot, M., de Witte, L., Reichrath, E., Buntinx, W., & Curfs, L. (2009). Impact of environmental factors on community participation of persons with an intellectual disability: A systematic review. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53 (1), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, S. (2005). Transitions to adult life. In Cronin, A. & Mandich, M. (Eds.), Human development and performance throughout the lifespan (pp. 264–284). Clifton Park NJ: Thomson Delmar Learning.Google Scholar
Williams, G., Weragoda, N., Paterson, K., & Clark, R. (2013). Cardiovascular fitness is unrelated to mobility limitations in ambulant people with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 26 (9), 1065–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G., & Willmott, C. (2012). Higher levels of mobility are associated with greater societal participation and better quality of life. Brain Injury, 26 (9), 1065–1071.Google Scholar
Wise, E., Hoffman, J., Powell, J., Bombardier, C., & Bell, K. (2012). Benefits of exercise maintenance after traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 8, 1319–1323.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar
Zimring, C., & Reizenstein, J. (1980). Post-occupancy evaluation: An overview. Environment and Behaviour, 12 (4), 429–450.Google Scholar