Housing priorities of persons with a spinal cord injury and their household members
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the housing priorities of families living with persons with a spinal cord injury (SCI). METHOD: A new tool, the psycho-environmental housing priorities (PEHP), was developed following the principles of Q-methodology and based on the psycho-environmental model. The PEHP includes 48 items concerning housing needs that were presented to 29 persons with SCI and to 30 of their household members to determine the more important needs in their home. RESULTS: Four different profiles of housing priorities emerged from the analysis, with persons with SCI and household members being dispersed across these profiles. Some needs, such as social contact and security, were identified as priorities in all the profiles while others, such as pleasure, were unique to some profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the heterogeneity of housing needs and the importance of addressing each family as unique when considering housing. The results also show that some housing needs ought to be considered because they were identified as important by everyone. Rehabilitation professionals could use the PEHP as a tool to help households living with a person with SCI plan their housing modifications to better meet the needs of all inhabitants. Implications for Rehabilitation Spinal cord injury causes impairment that significantly alters the relationship with the housing environment and modifies the relative importance of housing needs. Persons with SCI and household members have varying housing needs, as suggested by the identification of four distinct profiles of housing priorities using the psycho-environmental housing priorities (PEHP). The security and social contact needs emerge as important in all profiles and may be considered "universal needs". Rehabilitation professionals may use the PEHP as a tool to help households living with a person with SCI plan their housing modifications, for instance to identify compatible and conflicting priorities, and develop solutions agreeable to everyone. Using PEHP in the modification process could contribute to the household's feeling of autonomy and control.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 | 0,007 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».