INTRODUCTION
For numerous individuals with mobility limitations, the proper availability of wheelchairs and sitting-assistive technology is crucial for social mobility and active involvement in everyday life. Most of the research conducted to date on wheelchairs and assistive sitting technology primarily assesses the satisfaction of the users with their wheelchairs and other mobility devices, along with examining the impact of these devices on factors such as efficiency, engagement, and lifestyle quality. Independent mobility is essential for people of all ages ( Duvall et al., 2021). Children who lack autonomous walking miss out on significant opportunities for learning, which can result in developmental delays when compared to their peers. Adults who are unable to move independently are less independent, which can lead to poor self-perception. Regardless of the stage of life, independent mobility is essential and can present significant challenges in pursuing professional and academic objectives. Although power wheelchairs often meet the needs of people with impairments, up to 40% of the people with disabilities find it challenging or impossible to use typical power wheelchairs. Impaired eyesight, visual field mistreatment, stiffness, shaking, or cognitive deficiencies are not the only characteristics of this population ( Graham et al., 2020; Kenyon et al., 2021).
Conventional (manually operated) wheelchairs represent fascinating and significant technological advancements. Manual wheelchairs can be both the most crucial means of transportation for a person and the most restrictive issue for those depending on them for communal mobility. While the initial folding chassis manual wheelchairs were introduced 60 years ago, they may appear unchanged to an untrained eye. Nevertheless, manual wheelchairs, particularly ultralight wheelchairs, have evolved into sophisticated mechanical marvels. The advancements include a greater adaptability to fit a specific individual, a reduction in the movement passed on to the individual, and a focus on specifics such as ease of transportation, enhanced propulsion techniques, and the integration of new medical assessment instruments. The frame and all the component dimensions and weights (form elements) have also decreased. These developments have resulted in better functionality for consumers, increased the engagement in the community, and decreased the risk of injuries due to prolonged manual use of wheelchairs ( Huang et al., 2019; Graham et al., 2020).
In the last two decades, there have been very few developments in wheelchair layouts, despite the rapid technological and scientific advancements in equipment for people with disabilities. Recent developments in the design and manufacture of wheelchairs have focused on creating lighter, stronger, and more durable models. These advancements have been made possible using new materials, including plastics, custom-built composites, and beryllium–aluminum alloys. Additionally, various electric wheelchairs have been developed using different technologies. These include the use of sensors, such as ultrasonic and infrared sensors, cameras, encoders, gyro accelerometers, and many other buttons, joysticks, and pressure pads to provide a simple and comfortable service ( Jayakody et al., 2019; Rusek et al., 2023).
Many types of smart wheelchairs have been designed for people with disabilities who struggle with traditional wheelchairs. Smart wheelchairs are commonly used to facilitate mobility for people with disabilities. However, many people face issues, primarily in narrow or confined spaces, when maneuvering these wheelchairs. Numerous strategies have been proposed to address this issue. An electrooculography (EOG)-based approach can be beneficial for people born with any congenital brain disease and those who have suffered severe trauma. The functional disparity between the retina and horn of the eye is indicated by EOG signals; pulses are produced when the eyes roll up or down. As the rolling angle increases, the pulse amplitude also increases. Furthermore, the heartbeat duration is approximately proportional to the eyeball rolling. While the proposed method is promising, it faces certain challenges, such as mistakes when using the device in low-light conditions and errors that occur during the implementation of commands. The algorithm of this technology is based on image processing of the eye, which requires well-lit conditions ( Kuntal et al., 2020; Kaur, 2021; Zhang et al., 2024). Brain–machine interfaces (BCIs) are techniques that help customers control their wheelchairs through brainwave signals. However, such strategies require consumer awareness of external factors as well as the potential introduction of specific constraints that restrict the use of these technologies. BCIs are compound strategies that enable immediate communication through brainwaves. A BCI device usually consists of three main devices, namely an acquisition unit for the signals, evaluation unit for the signals, and intervention unit ( Palumbo et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022; Naser and Bhattacharya, 2023).
According to a study conducted in 2021 on assistive devices for disabilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there is still a need to increase awareness and knowledge about the technologies used for wheelchairs. The study also showed that it is essential to have a guidebook directed at users and experts in the medical field to help provide technology for wheelchairs ( Alqahtani et al., 2023). In its Vision 2030, the Kingdom recently focused on collecting more comprehensive data to evaluate disability based on gender and geographical region and provide the best services to this group ( Alqahtani et al., 2021; Alsalem, 2023). Therefore, this study uses cross-sectional research to assess technology related to conventional and smart wheelchairs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It was carried out with the participation of wheelchair users, experts, clinicians, consumers, and educators.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional research methodology to assess the effectiveness of wheelchair technologies in Saudi Arabia. The cross-sectional research approach was selected due to its ability to gather substantial volumes of data from numerous individuals concurrently, without the need to manipulate factors. Furthermore, there was no need for a prolonged time of data gathering, particularly in relation to the intended result ( Rodby-Bousquet and Hägglund, 2010; Spector, 2019).
Sampling
The study sample comprised individuals who use wheelchairs and experts (including engineers or experts in wheelchair technology development, design, and research) located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This group is part of the Ministry of Health’s initiatives to accomplish Vision 2030 in the country. The main objective of the Health Cluster is to enhance the community’s access to healthcare services and cultivate cooperative alliances with individuals, empowering them to lead healthier and more satisfying lives. The hospital clusters of the group are strategically situated around the city, providing local inhabitants with comprehensive and uninterrupted healthcare services.
Convenience sampling was used to find wheelchair users and experts who fit the inclusion criteria and volunteered to participate. Academics in several domains utilize convenience sampling as a strategy to gather data from a ready pool of individuals. Its numerous advantages include quick data gathering, cheap prices, ease of installation, and convenient sample access.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria
Wheelchair users and experts who were:
Engineers involved in or with expertise in wheelchair technology development, design, and research.
Individuals of all ages and sexes with a documented physical disability require the use of a wheelchair for mobility. The disabilities include, but are not limited to, spinal cord injuries, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, amputations, and mobility impairments due to medical conditions.
Family members (e.g. parents, spouses, siblings, or caregivers) of the individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs.
Study instrument
The study used the wheelchair technology evaluation questionnaire, the questions of which were formulated after a comprehensive search of the relevant literature. The questionnaire underwent rigorous reliability testing to ensure consistency and validity as a tool for assessing nurse managers’ competencies. It consists of 28 items grouped into 7 domains, including users’ opinions of traditional wheelchairs, opinions of experts and engineers on wheelchair technologies, advantages and disadvantages of smart wheelchairs, advantages and disadvantages of traditional wheelchairs, and actual performance. Items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree) ( Joshi et al., 2015). Higher scores indicate stronger competencies, while lower scores indicate areas for potential improvement as shown in Table 1.
Data collection method
This study used a quantitative survey to collect data. Quantitative surveys are the most commonly used method in research to find out the opinions of a sample of people. This survey had 591 participants, and the survey questions included their opinions, behaviors, and experiences. Data collection in this study involved qualitative methods. Quantitative data were collected using questionnaires designed for independent wheelchair users ( Mertens et al., 2017).
Data analysis
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 26. Both descriptive and inferential statistical tests were employed. Frequency distributions were calculated in the descriptive statistical analysis to analyze the individual item responses. Measures of central tendency were used to determine the overall competency levels, while measures of dispersion were employed to evaluate the variability of responses. The statistical tests were chosen to thoroughly evaluate the abilities of participants and determine the elements that have an impact.
Ethical considerations
Before data collection, all participants were given informed consent, highlighting their choice of involvement and ensuring confidentiality. The process of collecting and saving data followed strict privacy protocols in order to protect sensitive information. The study obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (IRB Log No: NIC-IRB-023-11-043) due to its compliance with ethical research standards. During the study, the participants’ rights were maintained, which included the freedom to voluntarily leave the survey without facing any negative repercussions. The ethical values of respect, kindness, and justice were employed throughout the data collection and analysis, ensuring the adherence to the highest ethical standards and the protection of the well-being and rights of the participants.
RESULTS
Demographic characteristics
A total of 195 participants participated in this research, and Figure 1 and Tables 2 and 3 summarize the demographic characteristics of the participants in this study. The majority of the participants were aged 31-40 years (44.1%) followed by those aged 41-50 years (23.4%), 20-30 years (22%), >50 years (6.6%), and <20 years (1.9%).
Demographic characteristics.
| Variables | Categories | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 473 | 80.2 |
| Female | 117 | 19.8 | |
| Age | <20 years | 11 | 1.9 |
| 20-30 years | 130 | 22 | |
| 31-40 years | 260 | 44.1 | |
| 41-50 years | 138 | 23.4 | |
| >50 years | 51 | 6.6 |
Demographic characteristics of the physically disabled.
| Variables | Categories | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 111 | 75 |
| Female | 37 | 25 | |
| Age | <20 years | 3 | 2 |
| 20-30 years | 29 | 20 | |
| 31-40 years | 71 | 49 | |
| 41-50 years | 37 | 25.5 | |
| >50 years | 8 | 5.5 |
Among the participants, the results showed that there were 148 physically disabled participants, of whom 75% were male and 25% were female. The majority were aged 31-40 years (49%) followed by those aged 41-50 years (25.5%), 20-30 years (20%), >50 years (5.5%), and <20 years (2%).
Validity and reliability
The analysis results presented in Table 4 showed that the correlation coefficients (** correlation is significant at α = 0.01 or less) between the scores of each item regarding the benefits of conventional chairs and the total score of the items were statistically significant at the 0.01 significance level. Also, all of these items had positive values, which indicates a high level of internal consistency and a strong relationship and validity.
Table 5 illustrates that the correlation coefficients between the scores of each item regarding the benefits of smart wheelchairs and the total score of the items were statistically significant at a significance level of 0.01. Additionally, all these coefficients had positive values. This indicates a high level of internal consistency and a strong relationship between the items and its subitems, thus demonstrating that overall validity is achieved.
In addition, the results showed that Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.917 to 0.952, and the overall reliability of the questionnaire was 0.923. These findings indicate that the tool of the study (the questionnaire) exhibited high reliability as shown in Table 6.
Participants’ satisfaction with conventional and smart wheelchairs
The results showed that the benefits of conventional chairs ( Table 7) were moderate with a mean of 2.80. The mean of all benefits ranged from 2.67 to 2.91, reflecting a moderate level for each benefit.
Responses of the participants about the benefits of conventional chairs.
| No. | Items | Mean | SD | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The prices are reasonable and affordable | 2.91 | 1.27 | Moderate |
| 2 | It facilitates the movement over surfaces and obstacles | 2.77 | 1.37 | Moderate |
| 3 | Easy to move in small spaces | 2.87 | 1.39 | Moderate |
| 4 | Suitable for toilet activities | 2.74 | 1.40 | Moderate |
| 5 | Suitable for office use | 2.86 | 1.35 | Moderate |
| 6 | Easier to move around the car and truck | 2.75 | 1.40 | Moderate |
| 7 | Provides adequate protection against pain and damage to the upper and lower extremities of the body | 2.67 | 1.31 | Moderate |
| Average | 2.80 | 1.19 | Moderate |
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
In addition, the results in Table 8 showed that the benefits of smart chairs were high, with a mean of 3.4 compared to the mean of 2.80 for conventional chairs; all benefits except the price were high. The price was moderate. The mean price was 2.61, while that of all the other benefits ranged from 3.46 to 3.69.
Responses of the participants about the benefits of smart chairs.
| No. | Items | Mean | SD | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The prices are reasonable and affordable | 2.61 | 1.36 | Moderate |
| 2 | It facilitates the movement over surfaces and obstacles | 3.59 | 1.12 | High |
| 3 | Easy to move in small spaces | 3.55 | 1.11 | High |
| 4 | Suitable for toilet activities | 3.46 | 1.13 | High |
| 5 | Suitable for office use | 3.69 | 1.11 | High |
| 6 | Easier to move around the car and truck | 3.55 | 1.17 | High |
| Average | 3.41 | 0.98 | High |
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
Experience of the users and experts
The results in Table 9 showed that there were 442 wheelchair users and experts who participated in the questionnaire, of whom 81.9% were male and 18.1% were female. Furthermore, 42.8% were aged 31-40 years, 22.9% were aged 20-30 years, 22.9% were aged 41-50 years, 9.7% were aged >50 years, and 1.8% were aged <20 years. As per their careers, 21% were biomedical engineers, 10% were nurses, 3.2% were physiotherapists, 10% were physicians, and 55.9% were from other fields. As per the hospital/institution type, 71.3% were from governmental institutions, 4.8% from military institutions, and 24% from private institutions. Moreover, 52% had >10 years of experience, 13.1% had 1-3 years of experience, 12.9% had <1 year of experience, 11.1% had 7-10 years of experience, and 10.9% had 4-6 years of experience.
Demographic characteristics of the users and experts.
| Variables | Categories | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 362 | 81.9 |
| Female | 80 | 18.1 | |
| Age | <20 years | 8 | 1.8 |
| 20-30 years | 101 | 22.9 | |
| 31-40 years | 189 | 42.8 | |
| 41-50 years | 101 | 22.9 | |
| >50 years | 43 | 9.7 | |
| Career/field | Biomedical engineer | 93 | 21 |
| Nurse | 44 | 10 | |
| Physiotherapist | 14 | 3.2 | |
| Physician | 44 | 10 | |
| Other | 247 | 55.9 | |
| Hospital/institution type | Government | 315 | 71.3 |
| Military | 21 | 4.8 | |
| Private | 106 | 24 | |
| Years of experience | <1 year | 57 | 12.9 |
| 1-3 years | 58 | 13.1 | |
| 4-6 years | 48 | 10.9 | |
| 7-10 years | 49 | 11.1 | |
| >10 years | 230 | 52 |
The results in Table 10 showed that the degree of agreement between the experts and engineers on wheelchairs was moderate with a mean of 2.95; 30% expressed neutrality and disagreement about people being very familiar with the technologies used in wheelchairs (with the highest mean of 3.57); 38% agreed that the technologies available in wheelchairs were useful and reliable (with a moderate mean of 3.02); 34% were neutral about whether the wheelchairs available in the market met all needs (with a high mean of 3.53); 35% agreed that conventional wheelchairs are more used than others (with a moderate mean of 3.39); 31% were neutral about whether the available conventional wheelchairs are not of high quality.
Opinions of experts and engineers on wheelchairs.
| No. | Questions | Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly disagree | Mean | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People are very familiar with the technologies used in wheelchairs | 43 | 98 | 131 | 132 | 38 | 2.95 | Moderate |
| 10% | 22% | 30% | 30% | 9% | ||||
| 2 | The technologies available in wheelchairs are useful and reliable | 92 | 169 | 107 | 48 | 26 | 3.57 | High |
| 21% | 38% | 24% | 11% | 6% | ||||
| 3 | The wheelchairs available in the market meet all needs | 48 | 100 | 151 | 99 | 44 | 3.02 | Moderate |
| 11% | 23% | 34% | 22% | 10% | ||||
| 4 | Conventional wheelchairs are used more than the others | 95 | 155 | 115 | 43 | 34 | 3.53 | High |
| 21% | 35% | 26% | 10% | 8% | ||||
| 5 | Most of the available conventional wheelchairs are not of high quality | 85 | 129 | 138 | 52 | 38 | 3.39 | Moderate |
| 19% | 29% | 31% | 12% | 9% |
The results in Table 11 also indicated that the most significant advantages of smart wheelchairs were as follows: 39% mentioned that smart wheelchairs “will not tire out,” 37.6% highlighted that those smart wheelchairs “can be used on many surfaces,” and 23.4% appreciated that smart wheelchairs are “good for various terrains.”
Pros of smart wheelchairs.
| No. | Pros | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Used on many surfaces | 275 | 37.6 |
| 2 | Will not tire out | 285 | 39 |
| 3 | Good for various terrains | 171 | 23.4 |
| Total | 731 | 100 |
However, the results in Table 12 showed that the smart wheelchairs had higher purchase and maintenance costs (37.4%). This was followed by concerns about the requirement of more maintenance (23.5%), the need for constant charging (20.4%), and users having to be conscious of power usage (18.7%).
Cons of smart wheelchairs.
| No. | Cons | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | More maintenance required | 209 | 23.5 |
| 2 | Higher purchase and maintenance cost | 332 | 37.4 |
| 3 | Users need to be conscious of power usage | 166 | 18.7 |
| 4 | Need to charge constantly | 181 | 20.4 |
| Total | 888 | 100 |
In terms of the advantages of using conventional wheelchairs, the results in Table 13 indicated that this type of wheelchair was characterized by low maintenance (36.2%). Additionally, 32.3% agreed that having no batteries was less of a hassle, and 31.5% agreed that conventional wheelchairs were lightweight and often affordable.
Pros of conventional wheelchairs.
| No. | Pros | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Low maintenance | 285 | 36.2 |
| 2 | No batteries—less hassle | 254 | 32.3 |
| 3 | Lightweight and often affordable | 248 | 31.5 |
| Total | 787 | 100 |
On the other hand, the results in Table 14 showed that the most cited challenges with conventional wheelchairs were as follows: difficulties in traversing slopes and long distances (39.5%), requirement of some strength to use (33.8%), and users needing assistance to get around (26.7%).
Cons of conventional wheelchairs.
| No. | Cons | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Difficult for traversing slopes and long distances | 331 | 39.5 |
| 2 | Require some strength to use | 284 | 33.8 |
| 3 | Users may require assistance to get around | 224 | 26.7 |
| Total | 839 | 100 |
The results showed that 53.2% of experts and engineers on wheelchairs said that smart wheelchairs were more suitable for people with mobility impairments, 41% suggested both (smart and conventional wheelchairs), and only 5.9% suggested conventional wheelchairs as illustrated in Table 15.
Type of wheelchair more suitable for people with mobility impairments.
| No. | Type | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Conventional | 26 | 5.9 |
| 2 | Smart | 235 | 53.2 |
| 3 | Both | 181 | 41 |
| Total | 442 | 100 |
Based on participants’ responses in Table 16, the changes suggested for conventional or smart wheelchairs, ranked by frequency, are as follows. Price reduction: 27.7%; providing higher energy capacity batteries, fast chargers, and solar power chargers: 19.3%; reducing the weight of the chair and increasing its capacity to accommodate larger sizes: 19.3%; equipping the chair with an automated accident sensor and sending alert signals to the patient’s family: 12%; making the armrests and footrests adjustable to fit all desired positions: 6%; designing the chair to be suitable for slopes and stair ascents: 6%; improving the swivel function of the chair: 3.6%; adding voice command feature: 2.4%; modifications to facilitate the patient’s boarding onto the car seat: 1.2%; seatbelt: 1.2%; and increasing the speed: 1.2%.
Changes suggested for conventional or smart wheelchairs.
| No. | Changes | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reducing the weight of the chair and increasing its capacity to accommodate larger sizes | 16 | 19.3 |
| 2 | Providing higher capacity batteries, fast chargers, and solar power chargers | 16 | 19.3 |
| 3 | Adding voice command feature | 2 | 2.4 |
| 4 | Price reduction | 23 | 27.7 |
| 5 | Making the armrests and footrests adjustable to fit all desired positions | 5 | 6 |
| 6 | Improving the swivel function of the chair | 3 | 3.6 |
| 7 | Making modifications to facilitate the patient’s boarding onto the car seat | 1 | 1.2 |
| 8 | Equipping the chair with an automated accident sensor and sending alert signals to the patient’s family | 10 | 12 |
| 9 | Designing the chair to be suitable for slopes and stair ascents | 5 | 6 |
| 10 | Seatbelt | 1 | 1.2 |
| 11 | Increasing the speed | 1 | 1.2 |
| Total | 83 | 100 |
DISCUSSION
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supports the rights of individuals with disabilities and applies laws based on Islamic law. The Kingdom has made significant progress by enacting policies, issuing regulations, providing funds, developing rehabilitation programs, and being recognized as a significant partner in developing Saudi society. This study is in line with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s policies for supporting people with disabilities ( Alsalem, 2023).
The results showed that, from the perspective of physically disabled people, smart wheelchairs generally offer more significant benefits than conventional wheelchairs ( Kumar et al., 2020). However, conventional wheelchairs are considered more reasonable and affordable than smart wheelchairs in terms of price. Experienced owners and engineers had moderate agreement regarding people’s familiarity with the technologies used in wheelchairs, whether the wheelchairs available in the market meet all their needs, and the poor quality of conventional wheelchairs. They had a high agreement on the usefulness and reliability of the technologies available in wheelchairs and the prevalence of conventional wheelchairs compared to others ( Rouvier et al., 2022).
From the perspective of experienced owners and engineers, the most significant advantage of smart wheelchairs was their reduced fatigue factor. At the same time, the most important disadvantages included higher purchase and maintenance costs. For conventional wheelchairs, the primary advantage was their low maintenance, while the main drawbacks were difficulties in traversing slopes and long distances. In terms of suitability, 53.2% said that smart wheelchairs are more suitable for people with mobility impairments, 41% said both smart and conventional wheelchairs are appropriate, and only 5.9% preferred conventional wheelchairs. Experts and engineers suggested several changes to enhance both conventional and smart wheelchairs, the most common suggestions being price reduction; providing higher capacity batteries, fast chargers, and solar power chargers; reducing the chair weight and increasing its capacity to accommodate larger sizes; and equipping the chair with automated accident sensors and sending alert signals to the patient’s family ( Alkawai and Alowayyed, 2017; Alqahtani et al., 2023).
The development of wheelchairs is necessary for people with disabilities, according to much research. This led to the development of the wheelchair. The chair can be moved by hand or by attaching a navigation panel to the head. It consists of a navigation system that uses an accelerometer and a magnetometer. It also features a voice guidance system to assist the visually impaired, an obstacle avoidance system comprising four ultrasonic sensors, and a real-time location monitoring system that tracks the chair inside the building via radio frequency identification (RFID) ( Liu et al., 2021). As a result, it is a versatile and affordable smart wheelchair that is useful for people’s daily tasks. As a natural alternative to traditional wheelchairs, smart electric wheelchairs are now widely used by the elderly and people with mobility impairments. In order to accommodate a wide range of assistive technology applications, powered wheelchairs with intelligent control are needed. The construction and management of a four-wheel, omnidirectional wheelchair with a myoelectric user interface are addressed in this study. The Universal Drive System powers the designed system, providing greater maneuverability than traditional powered wheelchairs. In order to extract specific aspects of seven different wheelchair movements—forward, backward, left, right, turn, stop, clockwise, and counterclockwise—myoelectric signals from the forearm muscles are processed ( Bakouri, 2022; Bakouri et al., 2022).
In terms of limitations, linguistic and cultural differences may affect the accuracy of participants’ answers, leading to biased or incorrect interpretations of the results. Despite efforts to collect a representative sample, the diverse experiences and requirements of wheelchair users in Saudi Arabia made it challenging to generalize the findings. The limited quantity and poor quality of data and documentation available on wheelchair technology in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may also hamper the accuracy of the analysis. Also, applying recommendations and developing wheelchair technology in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may be affected by external factors such as changes in government policies or global events.
CONCLUSION
The study aims to evaluate wheelchair technologies by users and experts in the field. This research was conducted using quantitative and cross-sectional research approaches by collecting information from people who use wheelchairs, as well as from professionals and specialists in this sector, such as medical engineers and other individuals familiar with wheelchairs. The study took into account the opinions of users and experts about the use of traditional chairs and smart chairs in terms of the technologies used, ease of use, advantages and disadvantages, and other related topics.
More than 590 users and experts from places throughout the Kingdom participated in the study: 37.6% of participants confirmed that these chairs can be used on a variety of surfaces, 23.4% of participants expressed their appreciation that smart wheelchairs are suitable for a variety of purposes and terrains, and about 39% of participants claimed that smart wheelchairs are very effective, highlighting the positive impact of these advanced technologies. On the other hand, the results revealed that the costs of purchasing and maintaining smart wheelchairs were very high, reaching 37.4% on average. Next, concerns were raised about the need for constant charging (20.4%), the need for users to be mindful of energy use (18.7%), and the need for greater maintenance requirements (23.5%). There are a number of benefits associated with using classic wheelchairs, including the fact that they require little maintenance, are lightweight, and are often affordable. Using this type of chair presents a number of challenges, including navigating hills and long distances, requirements for a certain amount of strength, and requirements that users need assistance in order to move around.
According to the results of the study, tremendous progress has been achieved in wheelchair technology, especially in the areas of smartphones and navigation. An analysis of wheelchair technology currently available in Saudi Arabia revealed significant advances, particularly in urban areas and healthcare institutions at the present time. Due to their ability to improve the mobility of their users, motorized electric wheelchairs are gaining popularity. However, there are still a limited number of high-end wheelchair models and accompanying accessories available.
Based on this conclusion, this study recommends the following:
Conduct educational campaigns and workshops to raise awareness and accessibility to advanced wheelchair devices among medical professionals, people with disabilities, and their families.
Establish and enforce quality standards for wheelchair manufacturing and distribution to guarantee that users obtain safe, reliable, high-quality goods.
Promote better insurance coverage and reimbursement procedures to increase the accessibility and affordability of current wheelchair technologies for individuals requiring them.
Encourage cooperation between engineers, medical professionals, and individuals with disabilities to jointly develop solutions that address the unique requirements of wheelchair users in Saudi Arabia.
Academics and groups should be encouraged to share information and collaborate to conduct in-depth studies on wheelchair technology, its effects, and user needs.