Perceived Inclusivity in Mobility Aids Use: A Qualitative Study in Iran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the authors for their significant contribution to understanding mobility aid (MA) users' perceptions of inclusivity, an essential aspect of advancing disability studies and design practices. The manuscript is well-structured, relevant, and provides valuable insights into the gaps in users' needs while offering practical recommendations to address them. I recommend several minor revisions to enhance the clarity, organization, and methodological rigor of the manuscript. I believe this work will make a meaningful contribution to the literature on inclusive design and rehabilitation practices.

1. Abstract:

• Include the type of qualitative research design used in this study.

2. Introduction:

• The authors should consider deleting the last paragraph of the introduction since this is a manuscript for a scientific journal and not a thesis or dissertation.

3. Materials and Methods

• General: I suggest re-ordering this section as follows:
  i. Research design
  ii. DARE-Inclusive Design Framework
  iii. Recruitment and
• Study procedures:
  i. Please identify the qualitative approach used in this study (e.g., descriptive, ethnographic, phenomenology, grounded theory, etc.).
  ii. The identified procedures are more aligned with the data analysis process. I suggest moving this information to the data analysis section. Instead of study procedures, I recommend changing this section’s sub-heading to “Study design.”
• Development of interview guidelines and questions:
  i. This section should be renamed “Data Collection Instruments.”
  ii. The authors should include the interview questions in this section or as an appendix of the interview guide questions.
  iii. Describe the devices used for data collection (e.g., audio recorders).
• Recruitment and study population:
  i. Authors should justify the sample size based on the selected study design.
  ii. Include the criteria for deciding when no further sampling was necessary and its rationale.
• Data collection:
  i. Describe the characteristics of the data collectors/interviewers (e.g., qualifications/experiences, relationship with participants, assumptions and/or presuppositions, or potential or actual interaction between researchers’ characteristics and the research questions, approach, methods, results, and/or transferability).
  ii. I suggest moving the interview questions to the “Data collection instruments” section.
• Data analysis:
  i. Describe the qualifications/experiences of the two authors involved in data analysis.

4. Results:

• Section 3.2 Theme 2: Correct “Mas” to “MAs.”

5. Discussion:

• First paragraph: I suggest editing this paragraph to first restate the purpose of this study, followed by summarizing your major findings.
• Theme 1: Add how your findings align with other studies reporting the barriers for using MAs.
• Paragraphs should be at least four sentences.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors' responses are provided in the attached file. 

Thank you,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is an interesting study on the perceived inclusivity of users of mobility aids, based on 12 semistructured interviews to experienced physiotherapists in Iran. The study is very well presented and structured and gives all the information necessary to understand the research and its results.

However, a strong limitation of the study is that no users of mobility aids themselves have been interviewed. I think that a study like this should provide directly the insights of persons with disabilities, and not the perception that caregivers (in this case physiotherapists) think that persons with disabilities have. Nevertheless, the authors acknowledge that this is a limitation of their research and recognise that "future studies should involve both physiotherapists and active MA users" (lines 435-436). I think thus that the paper can be accepted, as it is interesting and adds to existing knowledge.

My only suggestion to improve the work is to include in the Introduction some reference to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is today the most important international normative framework on disability, and which devotes article 9 specifically to disability.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors' responses are provided in the attached file. 

Thank you,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

You highlight a keen issue of mismatches between interventions and user perceptions in rehabilitation which is not only the case of mobility aid users. I appreciated reading the manuscript and your way of results presented in four themes (perceived financial value, objective enhancements, subjective enhancements, contextual factors).

However, there are a few comments for your consideration.

I did not find where you defined the acronym PI in the text. It appeared in the line 93.

In Table 1, I recommend do not use the acronyms S and A. The sum has meaning only in the right column (not in the title) for better understanding.

Please check numbering in the section 3 Results (lines 227-233).

As a mild recommendation, probably for the future study, you could consider to describe your study and findings  in the terms of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health by the World Health Organization. Using the biopsychosocial model, regarding activities of mobility aid users and their environment fits well and will help you to present the results obtained in the common language recognized in the professional community, particularly in rehabilitation.

Best regards!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors' responses are provided in the attached file. 

Thank you,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf