Perceived impacts of a first wheelchair on social participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To document perceived impacts in users' daily activities and social roles (social participation) following the acquisition of a first manual or powered wheelchair. METHODS: A qualitative design with a phenomenological approach was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. An interview guide was developed based on the 12 social participation categories in the Disability Creation Process (DCP) conceptual model as themes underlying the questions: 'What has changed in your daily life since you got your new wheelchair?' and 'What has not changed in your daily life that you thought you would do differently with your new wheelchair?' RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The average age of the ten participants was 64.3 years (±16.3) and 90% had received a manual wheelchair. Four main themes emerged from the detailed analysis: changes in daily activities, expectations not met, impacts on social roles and emotional changes. The participants considered the changes in daily activities to be generally positive. Expectations not met mainly related to outdoor mobility. The participants had not anticipated the impacts on social roles and emotional changes, which demonstrate the complexity of human occupation. CONCLUSION: Getting a wheelchair is a major and complex event in a person's life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".