Practice considerations for the introduction and use of power mobility for children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to support clinicians in recommending and justifying power mobility for children of different ages and abilities, and with different needs. The study comprised three distinct parts: a literature review; a Delphi consensus; and clinical practice considerations. METHOD: A scoping review of eight electronic databases and manual searches carried out in February 2011 identified 15 themes or transferable messages among 27 articles meeting initial inclusion criteria and these formed the basis of a draft paper. Informal consensus at two international conference presentations refined and modified the paper to include 10 messages supported by 24 articles. The literature review was updated in May 2012 and a modified Delphi process sought to formalize the consensus process with an international panel of 16 expert clinicians and researchers using a priori criteria of 80% agreement. RESULTS: Evidence from studies was classified using the American Academy of Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine guidelines, with evidence from most studies being classified as either level IV or level V, apart from one study each with evidence classified as level II and level III. Expert consensus on the content and wording of nine transferable messages may raise evidence overall to level III. INTERPRETATION: This paper suggests that power mobility may reasonably be considered as an effective and appropriate intervention for children lacking efficient, independent mobility from around 12 months of age including children who may never become competent drivers and children lacking independent mobility only in early childhood.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".