An observational study of powered wheelchair provision in Italy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Powered wheelchairs are complex and expensive assistive devices that must be selected and configured on the basis of individual user needs, lifestyle, motivation, driving ability, and environment. Providing agencies often require evidence that their financial investment will lead to a successful outcome. The authors surveyed a sample of 79 users who had obtained powered wheelchairs from a Regional Health Service in Italy in the period 2008-2013. Follow-up interviews were conducted at the users' homes in order to collect information about wheelchair use, and its effectiveness, usefulness, and economic impact. The instruments used in the interviews included an introductory questionnaire, QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology), PIADS (Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale), FABS/M (Facilitators and Barriers Survey/Mobility), and SCAI (Siva Cost Analysis Instrument). The results indicated positive outcomes, especially in relation to user satisfaction and psychosocial impact. A number of barriers were identified in various settings that sometimes restrict user mobility, and suggest corrective actions. The provision of a powered wheelchair generated considerable savings in social costs for most users: an average of about $38,000 per person over a projected 5-year period was estimated by comparing the cost of the intervention with that of non-intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it