“It’s allowed us access to the outside world”: A Qualitative Study of Lifespan Supported Mobility Device Use in Cerebral Palsy

Participants and Setting

Individuals and family dyads (individual with CP + caregiver) and healthcare providers were recruited using purposive sampling across four US cities with regional CP care centers: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Site ‘champions’ were identified through professional networks to assist in procuring space for study procedures and aid in local recruitment (posting of study flyers and email distribution to patient registries or listservs). Potential participants directly contacted a study coordinator, who conducted eligibility screening, study enrollment and scheduling, and follow up. Inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in Table 1.

Study Team and Positionality

The research team consisted of two PhD trained pediatric physical therapists, each with between 20-30 years of clinical and research experience with individuals with CP and their families, a physiatrist with over 40 years of clinical and advocacy expertise within the CP community, and an experienced study coordinator. While all members of the research team have worked extensively with the CP community professionally, none identify as having lived experience with CP. For this reason, it was critical to convene a nine-member Stakeholder Advisory Panel, which consisted of individuals with ambulatory and non-ambulatory CP, caregivers, and healthcare providers to co-develop and guide the study as well as participate in data analysis and interpretation activities.

Study Procedures

Focus groups are a valuable way to gain perspectives from people with homogenous experiences, encouraging participants to elucidate their views and express dis/agreement in a group dynamic.²⁹ Focus groups consisting of 6-8 individuals or family dyads were carried out by two research team members with expertise in qualitative methods. Attempts were made to stratify focus groups by age and GMFCS levels (age bands of 0-7 yrs, 8-18 yrs, and 21+ years; GMFCS II-III, GMFCS IV-V), so participants were more likely to have some crossover in SMD experience. Based on participant demographics this was not always possible for GMFCS level, age stratification was largely successful. Professional focus groups took place separately from participants with CP, without stratification needed.

Focus groups were held in accessible community locations at each study site. Researchers established ground rules (i.e. validation of all perspectives and experiences, sharing without interruption, silencing cell phones, maintaining confidentiality, plus additional rules agreed upon by each group), and facilitated discussion. Researchers used the semi-structured focus group guide co-developed by the Stakeholder Advisory Panel during the first phase of the study using a Delphi consensus technique.³⁰ An excerpt of the guide is included in Figure 1. Focus group sessions lasted between 60-90 minutes and all sessions were audio recorded. Participants were issued a $30 gift card as compensation for their time and expertise.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Sample of Semi-Structured Focus Group Questions

This figure shows a sample of semi-structured focus group questions asked at each session. These questions were written and prioritized by a 9-member Stakeholder Advisory Panel representing the CP community during a previous study activity and are divided based on the openended categories used to generate the questions.

Data Analysis

Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and coded. Independent, handcoding of transcripts was conducted by the research team and the Stakeholder Advisory Panel. A constant comparative method was employed to create open codes, narrow to focused codes, and ultimately determine data saturation to derive central themes.²⁹ Following initial independent coding rounds, the three lead researchers met to discuss and refine code groupings until themes emerged, using discussion to resolve disagreement and respond to questions until 100% agreement was reached. To ensure rigor and minimize researcher bias, an audit trail was created for transparency, an example coding scheme is included in Figure 2. Additionally, thick descriptions of participant experiences were extracted from the data to ensure context was maintained. Researchers engaged in self-reflection to identify potential biases, and member checking was conducted with all participants to ensure accuracy of the themes and avoid misinterpretation of the data.²⁹

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Coding Process and Evolution of Thematic Analysis

Sample Coding Scheme

This figure depicts the coding scheme, which is part of the qualitative audit trail to ensure rigor in qualitative data analysis and interpretation. The quotes were first coded into open codes by multiple researchers, then condensed into focused codes, with discussion to resolve any disagreement as themes emerged from the focused codes.

The System is Broken

This theme described challenges faced by people with CP and caregivers as they navigate SMD procurement, use, and maintenance. Participants recognized they must work within a flawed system often regulated by unique policies based on state of residence, types of funding available, and the knowledge, preferences, and availability of individual providers. Many participants expressed frustration with a consistent cycle of SMD denials and appeals despite advocacy by their rehab teams (Table 3, Quote 1). Lengthy delays between evaluation and delivery or for repairs to essential SMD were frequently reported (Table 3, Quotes 2 and 3). Participants highlighted issues of cost, citing a system which labels SMD as ‘specialized’, resulting in significant price inflation that impacts participation (Table 3, Quotes 4 and 5). A lack of knowledge about different SMD options and a lack of trial equipment were also common (Table 3, Quote 6).

Equipment is Simultaneously Liberating and Restricting

The second theme described perspectives of SMD as critical facilitators of independence, agency, and self-concept throughout the lifespan, while simultaneously noting SMD-related barriers to participation. Nearly all participants shared their excitement about the functional and social freedom and inclusion facilitated by SMD (Table 3, Quotes 7 and 8). Another common finding was the recognition that multiple forms of SMD were essential to navigate different environments and situations (Table 3, Quote 9). Despite these clear benefits, participants simultaneously noted restrictive aspects of their SMD, including limited access to certain activities or environments (Table 3, Quotes 10 and 11).

Adaptation Across the Lifespan

The third theme described the need for both SMD and environments to better adapt and respond to individual needs across the lifespan. For example, participants described practical challenges such as fitting under desks or in workspaces (Table 3, Quote 12). Participants also noted frustration with the lack of SMD carrying over during the transition to adulthood (Table 3, Quote 13). As one participant stated, “I’ve had CP all my life, it’s not going away just because I’m an adult now.” (Mia, adult with CP). Other participants discussed challenges related to SMD keeping pace with growth and/or development (Table 3, Quote 14). Participants explored tensions between adaptability and the need for multiple types of SMD, agreeing that while adaptation is critical, there will always be a simultaneous need for custom SMD to meet the unique needs of individuals with CP (Table 3, Quote 15).

Designed for Transport, not for Living

The fourth theme described frustration with perceived lack of design and aesthetic innovation for SMD as an essential part of life. It also encompassed creativity and innovative ideas about SMD. For example, participants discussed their desire for SMD to reflect their personality (Table 3, Quote 16). They noted that there is limited choice when it comes to aesthetics, which was at times incongruent with their desire to express themselves with their SMD as an extension of their body (Table 3, Quote 17). Participants also agreed that insurance companies and other outsiders viewed most SMD as a means of transport, rather than a key means of participation in family and community activities (Table 3, Quote 18). Young children expressed their biggest wishes for their SMD design and function, including flying, temperature control, or a self-cleaning wheelchair (Table 2, Quote 19).

Sharing Our Stories and Sharing Resources

The fifth theme represented a call for voices to be heard more explicitly, to receive and provide support for others, and create a means of centralized information sharing to empower the community. For example, some caregivers noted that advocacy efforts that began as a parent of a child with CP turned into career opportunities (Table 3, Quote 20). Other participants shared their SMD successes to help others with identified barriers, such as seamless access to a beach chair for a day trip or grant funding opportunities for a needed SMD item (Table 3, Quote 21). Most participants noted some degree of isolation in navigating the complexities of life with CP. They recognized a lack of community and shared knowledge, especially early on in their CP journeys. Simple activities like the SMD focus groups were a powerful way to build stronger communities and learn from each other (Table 3, Quote 22).

Caught in the Middle

The final theme was specific to healthcare providers. This theme described being caught in between wanting to provide optimal care and SMD to their clients, yet recognizing barriers such as SMD design and access, constraints of funding limitations, increasing regulatory climates, and reduction of specialty seating clinics across the US. For example, professionals recognized the challenges of preserving salary support for ATPs, appropriate trial items, and having to contend with frequent appeals and delays in ordering SMD (Table 3, Quote 23). They also described the fine balance between empowering families, working within funding constraints, and relying on clinical experience for customized SMD solutions that may not yet have a significant evidence-base to draw from (Table 3, Quote 24). Managing expectations within this complex professional climate was noted as one of the field’s most significant challenges.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations. First, while a national sample of participants was recruited, selection bias may have skewed responses, since participants were mostly white and self-selected to take part in SMD focus groups. Second, because policy and funding implications differ widely state to state, and there is a lack of understanding about how funding agencies make SMD decisions, the absence of funding and policy representatives in our study is a clear limitation that will be rectified in future work. Third, the presence of a researcher with professional SMD experience has the potential to produce acquiescence bias, though the team attempted to mitigate this through unconditional positive regard as well as seeking out multiple and discordant/outlying viewpoints.²⁹ Finally, the large sample size resulted in a substantial qualitative data set. Though Stakeholder Advisory Panelists were provided explicit instructions for assisting with data coding and all codes were reviewed by the primary research team, coding idiosyncrasies among a large analysis team could have impacted thematic results. This limitation was mitigated by creating an audit trail to document all coding decisions as well as sharing thematic results and descriptions with participants during member-checking.²⁹

Shorter term future work includes conducting focus groups with funding agency and policy representatives. Long-term work will include the implementation of a national ‘smart survey’ stratified by age and GMFCS level to inform the development of a clinical algorithm that supports SMD provision and educates stakeholders about common barriers and potential solutions to optimize timing and provision of SMD across the lifespan of people with CP.