Impacts of wheelchair acquisition on children from a person-occupation-environment interactional perspective
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
Purpose: Mobility aids not only compensate for a locomotor disability, they also increase users’ opportunities for social participation. The objective was to explore the impacts of wheelchair (WC) acquisition on children’s social participation, personal factors and social environment.Methods: A literature review was done in MEDLINE for the years 1996 to 2011 (June) with an age range from birth to 12 years. The studies selected had to be in French or English and concern the impacts of a WC on children, their social participation or social environment.Results: The studies retained (n = 9) indicate generally positive impacts. A trend towards improved participation in personal care, mobility, interpersonal relationships and play was observed. Data regarding the effect on the development of cognitive functions are contradictory. For the social environment, a positive change was observed in parents’ attitudes and their own social participation after their child tried Assistive Technology.Conclusion: The results illustrate the complex interaction between person, environment and social participation. Although they are a compensatory aid, WCs do not have a negative impact on motor development. Finally, methodologically speaking, the subject seems to have been explored sufficiently to now be studied in greater depth by means of empirical studies generating evidence-based data.Implications for RehabilitationEvidences indicate an improved participation in personal care, mobility, interpersonal relationships and play following a wheelchair acquisition in children less than 12 years of age.According to evidences, acquisition of a wheelchair does not have a negative impact on motor development in children less than 12 years of age.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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