Appendix F: User Feedback Summary

Purpose

The purpose of testing is to understand the areas at which our ideas and the devices that resulted achieve their intended goal, preventing the scissoring gait that occurs after a patient experiences a stroke and has muscle spasticity in their hip adductors. Testing feedback also provides suggestions to improve our design and make them more effective.

Methodology

To test our mockups, we sent them down to the Shirley Ryan Ability Lab on Friday, February 11 to be tested by Jenny Sampras, a physical therapist at the facility. Our team provided her with videos explaining the intended use of the devices and questions regarding the positioning, materials, and practicality of our mockups to gauge the effectiveness of our devices at preventing the scissoring gait.

Results

Results Mockup 1: Divider Walker Attachment

For our first mockup, we made a divider that attached to the walker and provided a physical barrier to prevent the legs from crossing (Figure 13). For this device, we inquired about Ms. Sampras’ recommended dimensions of the device as well as any changes she recommended for the adjustability of the divider to accommodate for as many patients as possible.

Figure 13

Figure 13: Photo of divider attachment mockup

Ms. Sampras advised that the part of the divider that rests between the patient's legs be extended outwards towards the patient and beyond the walker, stating patients generally do not step in the places at which our device is best at preventing the legs from crossing. She also advised that the divider be able to be adjusted so it could rest at the patient’s inner thigh/knee or around ankle level so it could be used to prevent the legs from crossing as well as help with the patient’s foot placement. Finally, she recommended making the crossbar, which is intended to keep the divider from swinging parallel to the movement of the walker, adjustable and more secure. She reasoned this would allow the device to be more compatible with the types of walkers she uses at the facility, as it could remain stable for walkers that were wider than the one picture in Figure 13.

Results Mockup #2: Accordion Tubing Between Legs

Our second mockup that Ms. Sampras tested was accordion style tubing fitted with velcro straps on either side that attach to the legs (Figure 14). Our team asked for feedback on whether the tubing served as enough resistance to prevent the legs from crossing and if it could restrain the patient from having a correct gait.

Figure 14

Figure 14: Accordion tubing device

Ms. Sampras advised we change the tubing to something more contoured to the leg, explaining that the device as it is was uncomfortable over longer use periods. She also advised this change because she did not find that the accordion tubing provided enough resistance to prevent the legs from crossing and believed it could inhibit the patient from taking proper steps if it was fitted too tightly. Finally, she believed the device could be enhanced by making or attaching a second one that rested between the ankles to complement the one between the knees/thighs.

Conclusions and Limitations

The feedback on the divider device indicates that the device is near achieving its purpose. With modifications to the adjustability, sturdiness, and dimensions the device can prevent the scissoring gait. All of the recommended modifications can be achieved by recreating the device with a more rigid frame and adjustable mounting points. We intend to solve for the sturdiness by making the frame out of a durable plastic or lightweight metal. To make the device more adjustable, we intend to install a mechanism allowing for the crossbar to extend outwards for wider walkers, as well as attaching the frame using a double sided clamp so the frame can attach to the walker at any point of the vertical portion. Ms. Sampras’ feedback on the accordion tubing device shows that the device in its current form does not achieve the intended purpose, however, by changing the object to something that provides more comfort and resistance to the patient, it is feasible for the device to work. Given how significant the changes would need to be to the device for it to function correctly, the new prototype for the device may not be achievable at our budget constraint.