Authors : K. Rohini; K. S. Pushpa; M. Bhuvaneshwari

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4deynmwd

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26Oct314

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : A Walking stick is one of the most commonly used mobility devices by the elderly to prevent falls. However, many elder individuals face challenges while using walking sticks due to improper height adjustment, excessive weight, uncomfortable handles and a high risk of falling. To overcome these drawbacks, there is a need to understand the actual requirements of users before designing an assistive device. Therefore, the study was undertaken to identify the needs and feature expectations of the elderly for designing a walking stick. The study was conducted in the Dindigul district, Tamil Nadu. A total of 57 elderly respondents aged 60 years and above who were using walking sticks were purposively selected for the study. Face-to-face interviews were conducted by using an interview schedule and a Kano questionnaire comprising 11 attributes (A1-A11). Data collected through the interview schedule were coded, tabulated and analysed using Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage and mean. Data obtained from the Kano questionnaire were analysed using the Kano Evaluation Table. Further, Better-Worse coefficient analysis was used to prioritize the attributes. The study revealed that 73.7 per cent of the elderly respondents experienced difficulties while using existing walking sticks, with hand pain and difficulty in climbing bus steps being the major challenges. Kano analysis showed that strong and durable, ease of use and handling, safety features, long battery life and anti-slip base were classified as one-dimensional attributes, indicating that improved performance of these features directly enhances user satisfaction. Among the identified features, strong and durable has the highest SI (0.79) and highest DSI (-1.0), indicating that this feature has a strong influence on both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Similarly, safety features have SI (0.649) and DSI (-1.0), highlighting the importance of safety in walkingstick design. Overall, the findings show that basic features should be provided, performance features should be improved and attractive features can be added to increase user satisfaction. Indifferent features can be given less priority. The findings can therefore guide the selection and integration of appropriate features in the design and development of an effective, functional, safe and user-centred walking stick that addresses the needs and expectations of elderly users.

Keywords : Mobility Challenges, Assistive Device, User Requirements, Elder- Friendly Design, User Satisfaction.

References :

1. Abdul Rahman, A., Azman, F., Mohd Adzha, A., Ahmad Farid, S., Mohd Sabri, S., Nordin, N., & Abdul-Rahman, A. (2022). A Smart Walking Stick for Elderly People – PART 1: Market Survey and Concept Generation. Journal of Engineering and Science Research, 6(6), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.26666/rmp.jesr.2022.6.3
2. Alam, M., Khanam, M. A., & Streat field, P.K. (2012). The relationship between functional status, chronic illness and health-related quality of life among elderly people in urban Bangladesh. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 30(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.3329/jhpn.v30i3.12295
3. Bateni, H., & Maki, B. E. (2005). Assistive devices for balance and mobility: Benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(1), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.04.023
4. Berger, C., Blauth, R., & Boger, D. (1993). Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality Management Journal, 2(4), 3–35. https://www.walden-family.com/public/cqm-journal/2-4-Whole-Issue.pdf
5. Chen, Y., Li, H., Wang, J., & Zhang, L. (2025). Factors influencing elderly acceptance of smart canes: A user-centered study. Healthcare, 13(22), 2934. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13222934
6. Dakopoulos, D., & Bourbakis, N. G. (2010). Wearable obstacle avoidance electronic travel aids for blind: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C, 40(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2009.2021255
7. Ezugwu, A. E., Ikotun, A. M., Oyelade, O. N., Abualigah, L., Agushaka, J. O., & Eke, C. I. (2024). A comprehensive survey on mobility assistive technologies for elderly people. Health Science Reports, 7(3), e1886. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1886
8. Hwang, J., & Kim, S. K. (2023). Unexpected longevity, intergenerational policies, and fertility. Journal of Population Economics, 36(3), 1607 1640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-023-00943-3
9. Kumar, A., Singh, R., & Sharma, P. (2014). Walking aid use among older adults in community settings: A study from Asia. Journal of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatrics, 5(2), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcgg.2014.02.002
10. Madan Gopal, K., Mukherjee, R., Kumar, S., Hazra, M. S., Global, I., Sinha, M. A., Dipika, M., Himanshu, J. M., & Disclaimer, S. (2024). Senior Care Reforms in India-Reimagining the Senior Care Paradigm: A Position Paper.
11. Maresova, P., Krejcar, O., Maskuriy, R., Selamat, A., Kuca, K., & others. (2023). Challenges and opportunity in mobility among elderly – key determinant identification. BMC Geriatrics, 23, 447. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04106-7
12. Musich, S., Wang, S. S., Ruiz, J., Hawkins, K., & Wicker, E. (2018). The impact of mobility limitations on health outcomes among older adults. Geriatric Nursing, 39(2), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2017.08.002
13. National Programme for Health Care of Elderly & International Institute for Population Sciences. (2021). Longitudinal Ageing Study in India. India fact sheet. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.
14. Sengupta, P., Mondal, K., Mahata, H., De, S., & Dhara, P. C. (2022). Evaluation of Existing Walking Sticks and Recommendations for Modified Walking Stick. Indian Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 30(3), 69–73. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10066-0056
15. Senjam, S. S., & Mannan, H. (2023). Assistive technology: The current perspective in India. In Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (Vol. 71, Number 5, pp. 1804–1809). Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_2652_22
16. World Health Organization. (2025). Ageing and health (Fact Sheets). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health