Safety Concerns in Mobility-Assistive Products for Older Adults: Content Analysis of Online Reviews

Background: Older adults who have difficulty moving around are commonly advised to adopt mobility-assistive devices to prevent injuries. However, limited evidence exists on the safety of these devices. Existing data sources such as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System tend to focus on injury description rather than the underlying context, thus providing little to no actionable information regarding the safety of these devices. Although online reviews are often used by consumers to assess the safety of products, prior studies have not explored consumer-reported injuries and safety concerns within online reviews of mobility-assistive devices. Objective: This study aimed to investigate injury types and contexts stemming from the use of mobility-assistive devices, as reported by older adults or their caregivers in online reviews. It not only identified injury severities and mobility-assistive device failure pathways but also shed light on the development of safety information and protocols for these products. Methods: Reviews concerning assistive devices were extracted from the “assistive aid” categories, which are typically intended for older adult use, on Amazon’s US website. The extracted reviews were filtered so that only those pertaining to mobility-assistive devices (canes, gait or transfer belts, ramps, walkers or rollators, and wheelchairs or transport chairs) were retained. We conducted large-scale content analysis of these 48,886 retained reviews by coding them according to injury type (no injury, potential future injury, minor injury, and major injury) and injury pathway (device critical component breakage or decoupling; unintended movement; instability; poor, uneven surface handling; and trip hazards). Coding efforts were carried out across 2 separate phases in which the team manually verified all instances coded as minor injury, major injury, or potential future injury and established interrater reliability to validate coding efforts. Results: The content analysis provided a better understanding of the contexts and conditions leading to user injury, as well as the severity of injuries associated with these mobility-assistive devices. Injury pathways—device critical component failures; unintended device movement; poor, uneven surface handling; instability; and trip hazards—were identified for 5 product types (canes, gait and transfer belts, ramps, walkers and rollators, and wheelchairs and transport chairs). Outcomes were normalized per 10,000 posting counts (online reviews) mentioning minor injury, major injury, or potential future injury by product category. Overall, per 10,000 reviews, 240 (2.4%) described mobility-assistive equipment–related user injuries, whereas 2318 (23.18%) revealed potential future injuries. Conclusions: This study highlights mobility-assistive device injury contexts and severities, suggesting that consumers who posted online reviews attribute most serious injuries to a defective item, rather than user misuse. It implies that many mobility-assistive device injuries may be preventable through patient and caregiver education on how to evaluate new and existing equipment for risk of potential future injury.