Rasoulivalajoozi, Mohsen 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1991-4174, Cucuzzella, Carmela ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4677-8518 and Farhoudi, Morteza ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-4528
(2025)
The dynamics of affective experiences with wheelchair use during rehabilitation: A qualitative study through physiotherapists' perspectives.
Acta Psychologica, 256
.
pp. 1-10.
ISSN 0001-6918
Preview |
Text (application/pdf)
930kB1-s2.0-S000169182500335X-main.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105022
Abstract
The interaction between users and mobility aids, including emotional attachment and functional expectations, influences their perceptions and decisions on acceptance and continued use during rehabilitation. Tracking interactions during rehabilitation helps identify key intervention points, leading to effective therapeutic relationships and user-centered mobility aid designs. This study aims to track the dynamics of affective experiences (DAE) of wheelchair users (WUs) during a planned rehabilitation timeframe and recommend how to manage these dynamics. To this end, initially, the product experience framework was applied for the development of interview guidelines and analysis. Next, adopting a qualitative approach, semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 12 experienced physiotherapists were conducted in Iran. Transcripts were then analyzed using a thematic analysis framework to identify themes. A total of three themes have been identified which include: 1) Coping in Using the Wheelchair, 2) Reluctant Acceptance of the Wheelchair: Adjusting to the New Normal, and 3) Approaching Recovery: Challenges in Over-reliance. Additionally, two diagrams illustrating the dynamics of the affective experience of WUs and its influencing factors during rehabilitation have been provided. This study shows that the affective experience of WUs is not static and changes through various stages of rehabilitation. This dynamic is influenced by factors of emotional and functional importance, both of which often grow after initial resistance but follow varied patterns. However, emotional attachment can sometimes lead to over-reliance even after recovery, posing challenges in the rehabilitation. Physiotherapists can help balance this attachment, influencing users' affective experiences with their wheelchairs.
| Divisions: | Concordia University > School of Graduate Studies > Individualized Program |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Article |
| Refereed: | Yes |
| Authors: | Rasoulivalajoozi, Mohsen and Cucuzzella, Carmela and Farhoudi, Morteza |
| Journal or Publication: | Acta Psychologica |
| Date: | 15 April 2025 |
| Funders: |
|
| Digital Object Identifier (DOI): | 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105022 |
| Keywords: | Wheelchair experience; Affective experience; Emotional attachment; Rehabilitation; Physiotherapy |
| ID Code: | 995465 |
| Deposited By: | Mohsen Rasoulivalajoozi |
| Deposited On: | 24 Apr 2025 16:32 |
| Last Modified: | 24 Apr 2025 16:32 |
| Related URLs: |
References:
1. Rasoulivalajoozi, M.; Farhoudi, M. Integrating User Perceptions of Socio-Emotional Aspects in Wheelchair Design: A Pilot Study Using Kansei Engineering. J. Transp. Health 2025, 42, 102002, doi:10.1016/j.jth.2025.102002.2. Product Experience; Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P., Eds.; 1st edition.; Elsevier Science: San Diego, CA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-08-045089-6.
3. Rasoulivalajoozi, M.; Cucuzzella, C.; Farhoudi, M. Domains of Wheelchair Users’ Socio-Emotional Experiences: Design Insights from a Scoping Review. Disabil. Health J. 2025, 101829, doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101829.
4. Cahill, S.E.; Eggleston, R. Reconsidering the Stigma of Physical Disability: Sociol. Q. 1995, 36, 681–698, doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00460.x.
5. Barbareschi, G.; Carew, M.T.; Johnson, E.A.; Kopi, N.; Holloway, C. “When They See a Wheelchair, They’ve Not Even Seen Me”—Factors Shaping the Experience of Disability Stigma and Discrimination in Kenya. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 4272, doi:10.3390/ijerph18084272.
6. Grue, J. The Social Meaning of Disability: A Reflection on Categorisation, Stigma and Identity. Sociol. Health Illn. 2016, 38, 957–964, doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12417.
7. Matin, P. Introductionn of Medical Annthropology; 1st ed.; Farhameh: Tehran, 2021; ISBN 978-600-94057-1-8.
8. Blach Rossen, C.; Sørensen, B.; Würtz Jochumsen, B.; Wind, G. Everyday Life for Users of Electric Wheelchairs – a Qualitative Interview Study. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2012, 7, 399–407, doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.665976.
9. Costa, V. de S.P.; Melo, M.R.A.C.; Garanhani, M.L.; Fujisawa, D.S. Social Representations of the Wheelchair for People with Spinal Cord Injury. Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem 2010, 18, 755–762, doi:10.1590/S0104-11692010000400014.
10. Mokdad, M.; Mebarki, B.; Bouabdellah, L.; Mokdad, I. Emotional Responses of the Disabled Towards Wheelchairs. In Proceedings of the Advances in Affective and Pleasurable Design; Chung, W., Shin, C.S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2018; pp. 86–96.
11. Barlew, L.; Secrest, J.; Guo, Z.; Fell, N.; Haban, G. The Experience of Being Grounded: A Phenomenological Study of Living with a Wheelchair. Rehabil. Nurs. J. 2013, 38, 193, doi:10.1002/rnj.96.
12. Edberg, A.-K.; Persson, D. The Experience of Active Wheelchair Provision and Aspects of Importance Concerning the Wheelchair Among Experienced Users in Sweden. Rev. Disabil. Stud. Int. J. RDS 2011, 7.
13. Saia, T.; Vogel, E.; Salazar, S. “We Need a World We Can Operate in”: Exploring the Relationship between Societal Stigma and Depression among Wheelchair Users. Disabil. Health J. 2024, 17, 101624, doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2024.101624.
14. Pňaček(ová), M. Affective Change Through Affective Artificial Intelligence. In AI and Society; Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2022 ISBN 978-1-003-26124-7.
15. Bettiga, D.; Lamberti, L. Exploring the Role of Anticipated Emotions in Product Adoption and Usage. J. Consum. Mark. 2018, 35, 300–316, doi:10.1108/JCM-06-2016-1860.
16. Yoon, J.; Kim, C.; Kang, R. Positive User Experience over Product Usage Life Cycle and the Influence of Demographic Factors. Int. J. Dsign 2020, 14.
17. Carneiro, L.; Rebelo, F.; Noriega, P.; Faria Pais, J. Could the Design Features of a Wheelchair Influence the User Experience and Stigmatization Perceptions of the Users? In Proceedings of the Advances in Ergonomics in Design; Rebelo, F., Soares, M., Rebelo, F., Soares, M., Eds.; Cham, 2017; pp. 841–850.
18. Hossen Sajib, S. Identifying Barriers to the Public Transport Accessibility for Disabled People in Dhaka: A Qualitative Analysis. Trans. Transp. Sci. 2022, 13, 5–16, doi:10.5507/tots.2022.004.
19. Widehammar, C.; Lidström, H.; Hermansson, L. Environmental Barriers to Participation and Facilitators for Use of Three Types of Assistive Technology Devices. Assist. Technol. 2019, 31, 68–76, doi:10.1080/10400435.2017.1363828.
20. Teodiano Freire Bastos; Filho, Dinesh Kumar; Sridhar Poosapadi Arjunan Devices for Mobility and Manipulation for People with Reduced Abilities; CRC Press, 2017; ISBN 978-1-138-07378-4.
21. Antler, L.; Lee, M.H.M.; Zaretsky, H.H.; Pezenik, D.P.; Halberstam, J.L. Attitude of Rehabilitation Patients Towards the Wheelchair. J. Psychol. 1969, 73, 45–52, doi:10.1080/00223980.1969.10543515.
22. Desmet, P.; Dijkhuis, E. A Wheelchair Can Be Fun: A Case of Emotion-Driven Design. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, June 23 2003; pp. 22–27.
23. Brandt, A.; Iwarsson, S.; Ståhle, A. Older People’s Use of Powered Wheelchairs for Activity and Participation. J. Rehabil. Med. 2004, 36, 70–77, doi:10.1080/16501970310017432.
24. Rousseau-Harrison, K.; Rochette, A.; Routhier, F.; Dessureault, D.; Thibault, F.; Cote, O. Perceived Impacts of a First Wheelchair on Social Participation. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2012, 7, 37–44, doi:10.3109/17483107.2011.562957.
25. Sapey, B.; Stewart, J.; Donaldson, G. Increases in Wheelchair Use and Perceptions of Disablement. Disabil. Soc. 2005, 20, 489–505, doi:10.1080/09687590500156162.
26. Carneiro, L.; Rebelo, F.; Noriega, P. Different Wheelchairs Designs Influence Emotional Reactions from Users and Non-Users? In Proceedings of the Advances in Ergonomics in Design; Rebelo, F., Soares, M.M., Rebelo, F., Soares, M.M., Eds.; Cham, 2018; pp. 572–580.
27. Mortenson, W.B.; Miller, W.C. The Wheelchair Procurement Process: Perspectives of Clients and Prescribers. Can. J. Occup. Ther. Rev. Can. Ergother. 2008, 75, 167–175, doi:10.1177/000841740807500308.
28. Özcan, E.; Güçhan Topcu, Z.; Arasli, H. Determinants of Travel Participation and Experiences of Wheelchair Users Traveling to the Bodrum Region: A Qualitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 2218, doi:10.3390/ijerph18052218.
29. Busetto, L.; Wick, W.; Gumbinger, C. How to Use and Assess Qualitative Research Methods. Neurol. Res. Pract. 2020, 2, 14, doi:10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z.
30. Chartered Society Of Physiotherapy Disabled, Not Defeated Available online: https://www.csp.org.uk/frontline/article/disabled-not-defeated (accessed on 9 February 2024).
31. Coombs, N.C.; Campbell, D.G.; Caringi, J. A Qualitative Study of Rural Healthcare Providers’ Views of Social, Cultural, and Programmatic Barriers to Healthcare Access. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 438, doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07829-2.
32. Cucuzzella, C.; Rasoulivalajoozi, M.; Farzamfar, G. Spatial Experience of Cancer Inpatients in the Oncology Wards: A Qualitative Study in Visual Design Aspects. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2024, 70, 102552, doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102552.
33. Jack, B.A.; Mitchell, T.K.; O’Brien, M.R.; Silverio, S.A.; Knighting, K. A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals’ Views and Experiences of Paediatric Advance Care Planning. BMC Palliat. Care 2018, 17, 93, doi:10.1186/s12904-018-0347-8.
34. Desmet, P.; Hekkert, P. Framework of Product Experience. Int. J. Des. 112007 2007.
35. Jamshed, S. Qualitative Research Method-Interviewing and Observation. J. Basic Clin. Pharm. 2014, 5, 87–88, doi:10.4103/0976-0105.141942.
36. Longhurst, R. Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography; Kitchin, R., Thrift, N., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, 2009; pp. 580–584 ISBN 978-0-08-044910-4.
37. Desmet, P. Designing Emotions; Delft University of Technology, Department of Industrial Design, 2002; ISBN 978-90-90-15877-8.
38. Johnston, M.; Bonetti, D. Disability: Psychological and Social Aspects. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Smelser, N.J., Baltes, P.B., Eds.; Pergamon: Oxford, 2001; pp. 3704–3710 ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8.
39. Fugard, A.J.B.; Potts, H.W.W. Supporting Thinking on Sample Sizes for Thematic Analyses: A Quantitative Tool. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2015, 18, 669–684, doi:10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453.
40. Tong, A.; Sainsbury, P.; Craig, J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32-Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2007, 19, 349–357, doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
41. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Thematic Analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological; APA handbooks in psychology®; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, US, 2012; pp. 57–71 ISBN 978-1-4338-1005-3.
42. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101, doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
43. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Conceptual and Design Thinking for Thematic Analysis. Qual. Psychol. 2022, 9, 3–26, doi:10.1037/qup0000196.
44. UChicago Library The Holy Defense - The Graphics of Revolution and War - The University of Chicago Library Available online: https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/collex/exhibits/graphics-revolution-and-war-iranian-poster-arts/holy-defense/ (accessed on 8 April 2024).
45. Kujala, S.; Roto, V.; Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.; Karapanos, E.; Sinnelä, A. UX Curve: A Method for Evaluating Long-Term User Experience. Interact. Comput. 2011, 23, 473–483, doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.06.005.
46. Darling, R.B. Disability and Identity: Negotiating Self in a Changing Society; Reprint edition.; Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2019; ISBN 978-1-62637-818-6.
47. Iezzoni, L.I.; McCarthy, E.P.; Davis, R.B.; Siebens, H. Mobility Problems and Perceptions of Disability by Self-Respondents and Proxy Respondents. Med. Care 2000, 38, 1051.
48. Resnik, L.; Allen, S.; Isenstadt, D.; Wasserman, M.; Iezzoni, L. Perspectives on Use of Mobility Aids in a Diverse Population of Seniors: Implications for Intervention. Disabil. Health J. 2009, 2, 77–85, doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2008.12.002.
49. Barbareschi, G.; Daymond, S.; Honeywill, J.; Singh, A.; Noble, D.; N. Mbugua, N.; Harris, I.; Austin, V.; Holloway, C. Value beyond Function: Analyzing the Perception of Wheelchair Innovations in Kenya. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, October 29 2020; pp. 1–14.
50. Aho, A.C.; Hultsjö, S.; Hjelm, K. Perceptions of the Transition from Receiving the Diagnosis Recessive Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy to Becoming in Need of Human Support and Using a Wheelchair: An Interview Study. Disabil. Rehabil. 2018, 41, 2289–2298, doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1464602.
51. Rasoulivalajoozi, M.; Cucuzzella, C.; Farhoudi, M. Perceived Inclusivity in Mobility Aids Use: A Qualitative Study in Iran. Disabilities 2025, 5, 15, doi:10.3390/disabilities5010015.
52. Faraji, A.; Valajoozi, M.R. Interactive Foot Orthosis (IFO) for People with Drop Foot. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 464, 129–134, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.464.129.
53. Stephens, M.; Bartley, C.A. Understanding the Association between Pressure Ulcers and Sitting in Adults What Does It Mean for Me and My Carers? Seating Guidelines for People, Carers and Health & Social Care Professionals. J. Tissue Viability 2018, 27, 59–73, doi:10.1016/j.jtv.2017.09.004.
54. Requejo, P.S.; Furumasu, J.; Mulroy, S.J. Evidence-Based Strategies for Preserving Mobility for Elderly and Aging Manual Wheelchair Users. Top. Geriatr. Rehabil. 2015, 31, 26–41, doi:10.1097/TGR.0000000000000042.
55. Rousseau-Harrison, K.; Rochette, A.; Routhier, F.; Dessureault, D.; Thibault, F.; Cote, O. Perceived Impacts of a First Wheelchair on Social Participation. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2011, 7, 37–44, doi:10.3109/17483107.2011.562957.
56. Rasoulivalajoozi, M.; Touir, G. Spinal Fusion Surgery for High-Risk Patients: A Review of Hospitals Information. Soc. Determinants Health 2023, 9, 1–12, doi:10.22037/sdh.v9i1.39958.
57. Matera, C.; Nerini, A.; Di Gesto, C.; Policardo, G.R.; Maratia, F.; Dalla Verde, S.; Sica, I.; Paradisi, M.; Ferraresi, L.; Pontvik, D.K.; et al. Put Yourself in My Wheelchair: Perspective-Taking Can Reduce Prejudice toward People with Disabilities and Other Stigmatized Groups. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 51, 273–285, doi:10.1111/jasp.12734.
58. Morris, L.; Cramp, M.; Turton, A. User Perspectives on the Future of Mobility Assistive Devices: Understanding Users’ Assistive Device Experiences and Needs. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng. 2022, 9, 20556683221114790, doi:10.1177/20556683221114790.
59. Martire, L.M.; Schulz, R. Involving Family in Psychosocial Interventions for Chronic Illness. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 16, 90–94, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00482.x.
60. Gardner, B.; Arden, M.A.; Brown, D.; Eves, F.F.; Green, J.; Hamilton, K.; Hankonen, N.; Inauen, J.; Keller, J.; Kwasnicka, D.; et al. Developing Habit-Based Health Behaviour Change Interventions: Twenty-One Questions to Guide Future Research. Psychol. Health 2023, 38, 518–540, doi:10.1080/08870446.2021.2003362.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.
Repository Staff Only: item control page
Download Statistics
Download Statistics