Development of a Wheelchair Skills Home Program for Older Adults Using a Participatory Action Design Approach
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
Restricted mobility is the most common impairment among older adults and a manual wheelchair is often prescribed to address these limitations. However, limited access to rehabilitation services results in older adults typically receiving little or no mobility training when they receive a wheelchair. As an alternative and novel approach, we developed a therapist-monitored wheelchair skills home training program delivered via a computer tablet. To optimize efficacy and adherence, principles of self-efficacy and adult learning theory were foundational in the program design. A participatory action design approach was used to engage older adult wheelchair users, care providers, and prescribing clinicians in an iterative design and development process. A series of prototypes were fabricated and revised, based on feedback from eight stakeholder focus groups, until a final version was ready for evaluation in a clinical trial. Stakeholder contributions affirmed and enhanced the foundational theoretical principles and provided validation of the final product for the target population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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