MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974681208 · doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.907367

A description of manual wheelchair skills training: current practices in Canadian rehabilitation centers

2014· article· en· W1974681208 on OpenAlex
Krista L. Best, François Routhier, William C. Miller

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWorld Health Organization
KeywordsWheelchairRehabilitationDemographicsTraining (meteorology)Manual wheelchairPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical educationMedicinePhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To describe current practices for manual wheelchair (MWC) skills training in Canadian rehabilitation centers. METHODS: An online survey was sent to practice leaders in occupational (OT) and physical therapy (PT) at 87 Canadian rehabilitation centers. Responses were solicited from individuals who could report about wheelchair skills training at facilities with at least 10 beds designated for rehabilitation. Thirty-four questions asked about: (1) demographics, (2) components of MWC training, (3) amount of MWC skills training, (4) use of validated programs and (5) perceived barriers to using validated programs. Data were analyzed using summary statistics. RESULTS: About 68/87 responses were received primarily from OTs (42/68). Basic MWC skills training (e.g. wheel-locks) was consistently part of clinical practice (45/68), while advanced skills training (e.g. curb-cuts) was rare (8/68). On an average, 1-4 h of training was done (29/68). Validated training programs were used by 16/68, most of whom used them "rarely" (7/16). Common barriers to using validated programs were lack of time (43/68) and resources (39/68). CONCLUSIONS: Learning to use a wheelchair is important for those with ambulation impairments because the wheelchair enables mobility and social participation. Providing opportunities for advanced wheelchair skills training may enhance mobility and social participation in a safe manner. Implications for Rehabilitation There is evidence confirming the benefits of a validated wheelchair skills program, yet most clinicians do no not use them. A variety of perceived barriers may help to explain the limited use of existing programs, such as time, resources and knowledge. Effective knowledge translation efforts may help alleviate some of these barriers, and novel wheelchair training approaches may alleviate some burden on clinicians to help accommodate the increasing number of older wheelchair users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it