↓ Skip to main content

Is any wheelchair better than no wheelchair? A Zimbabwean perspective

Overview of attention for article published in African Journal of Disability (Online), November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 117)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Is any wheelchair better than no wheelchair? A Zimbabwean perspective
Published in
African Journal of Disability (Online), November 2015
DOI 10.4102/ajod.v4i1.201
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Within a rights-based paradigm, wheelchairs are essential in the promotion of user autonomy, dignity, freedom, inclusion and participation. This paper aimed to describe a group of Zimbabwean wheelchair users' satisfaction with wheelchairs, wheelchair services and wheelchair function. A mixed method, descriptive study was done. Quantitative data was collected from 94 consecutively sampled wheelchair users, who accessed wheelchair services at 16 clinics in five Zimbabwean provinces between October 2013 and February 2014, using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology for adults and children and Functioning Every day with a Wheelchair questionnaire. Qualitative data were collected through two focus group discussions (22 participants) and two case studies with participants purposively sampled from those who participated in the quantitative phase. More than 60% of participants were dissatisfied with the following wheelchair features: durability (78.6%), weight (75.6%), ease of adjustment (69.1%), effectiveness (69.0%), safety (66.7%), reliability (66.7%), and meeting user needs (60.6%). Similarly, more than 66% of participants were dissatisfied with various services aspects: professional services (69.0%), follow-up (67.0%), and service delivery (68.3%). Although 60% of participants agreed that the wheelchair contributed to specific functions, more than 50% of participants indicated that the features of the wheelchair did not allow in- (53.2%) and outdoor (52.7%) mobility. Findings indicate high levels of dissatisfaction with wheelchair features and services, as well as mobility. It is recommended that policy and minimum service standards which incorporate evidence and good practice guidelines for wheelchair services and management of wheelchair donations are developed for Zimbabwe.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Engineering 7 11%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Design 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2025.
All research outputs
#6,596,760
of 33,992,632 outputs
Outputs from African Journal of Disability (Online)
#20
of 117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,430
of 441,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from African Journal of Disability (Online)
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,992,632 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them