Prevalence and Facility Level Correlates of Need for Wheelchair Seating Assessment among Long-Term Care Residents
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Wheelchairs are frequently prescribed for residents with mobility impairments in long-term care. Many residents receive poorly fitting wheelchairs, compromising functional independence and mobility, and contributing to subsequent health issues such as pressure ulcers. The extent of this problem and the factors that predict poor fit are poorly understood; such evidence would contribute greatly to effective and efficient clinical practice in long-term care. OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence of need for wheelchair seating intervention among residents in long-term care facilities in Vancouver and explore the relationship between the need for seating intervention and facility level factors. METHODS: Logistic regression analysis using secondary data from a cross-sectional study exploring predictors of resident mobility. A total of 263 residents (183 females and 80 males) were randomly selected from 11 long-term care facilities in the Vancouver health region (mean age 84.2 ± 8.6 years). The Seating Identification Tool was used to establish subject need for wheelchair seating intervention. Individual item frequency was calculated. Six contextual variables were measured at each facility including occupational therapy staffing, funding source, policies regarding wheelchair-related equipment, and decision-making philosophy. RESULTS: The overall prevalence rate of inappropriate seating was 58.6% (95% CI 52.6-64.5), ranging from 30.4 to 81.8% among the individual facilities. Discomfort, poor positioning and mobility, and skin integrity were the most common issues. Two facility level variables were significant predictors of need for seating assessment: ratio of occupational therapists per 100 residents [OR 0.11 (CI 0.04, 0.31)] and expectation that residents purchase wheelchair equipment beyond the basic level [OR 2.78 (1.11, 6.97)]. A negative association between facility prevalence rate and ratio of occupational therapists (r(p) = -0.684, CI -0.143 to -0.910) was found. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of need for seating assessment in long-term care is high overall but it varies considerably between facilities. Increasing access to occupational therapy services appears to mediate this need.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle