Understanding Divergent Pathways in Transfer Board Design

Transfer board design preferences vary significantly among wheelchair users, leading to high abandonment rates for these mechanically simple devices. Although manufacturers have attempted refinements for fifty years, adoption metrics remain poor because of a failure to address diverse user priorities. A recent Living-Lab study reveals that wheelchair users do not share a single vision for the ideal transfer board. Instead, they fall into distinct segments with divergent needs.

Researchers used hierarchical clustering to identify three primary user groups. First, the "Technology-embracing" segment seeks advanced features and modern enhancements. Second, the "Aesthetic and Portable" segment prioritizes a discreet appearance and ease of transport. Finally, the "Safety-focused" group values stability and robust grip above all else. Consequently, a universal design approach likely contributes to the high rate of device rejection.

Clinical Implications of Transfer Board Design Preferences

Physiotherapists and orthopedic surgeons should consider these preferences during the prescription process. Furthermore, involve the patient in the selection phase to improve long-term adherence. Transitioning from a standard prescription model to a co-design model ensures that the device fits the patient's lifestyle. Because preferences are divergent, offering a range of board types will significantly reduce the clinical waste associated with abandoned equipment.

FAQs on Transfer Board Design

Why is there a high abandonment rate for transfer boards?

Most boards use a universal design approach that fails to account for specific user priorities like portability, aesthetics, or high-tech integration.

How does co-design improve assistive technology adoption?

Co-design incorporates the lived experience of the user early in the development process, ensuring the final product meets functional and lifestyle needs.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice or a professional endorsement. Readers should not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease. Refer to the latest local and national guidelines for clinical practice.

References

• Trognon A et al. Preference clustering reveals divergent pathways for transfer-board design in a Living-Lab co-design study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2026 Feb 21. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2026.2631059. PMID: 41722084.


• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36-45.


• Swansea University. Assessing the use of co-design to produce bespoke assistive technology solutions within a current healthcare service. Cronfa Repository. 2022.