Impact of Wheeled Seated Mobility Devices on Adult Users' and Their Caregivers' Occupational Performance: A Critical Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prescription of wheeled seated mobility devices for clients with mobility impairment is a growing area in occupational therapy practice. The goal is to enhance client participation in occupation through technical intervention. This critical review examines the body of knowledge concerning the impact and effectiveness of the provision of wheeled seated mobility on the occupational performance of wheelchair users and their caregivers. The scope and gaps in the literature are defined to identify areas for future research. While the focus is on the methodological issues of the research reports, the relevance of findings to occupational therapy practice will also be reviewed. The results of the 46 studies in this review indicate that the majority of research conducted thus far have methodological limitations, which limits the extent to which this body of research can be drawn upon to provide evidence for the effectiveness of wheeled mobility systems. While most of the studies reviewed addressed constructs of relevance to occupational therapy practice, there was an emphasis on performance components and inadequate attention to engagement in occupations. This review is an important first step in building the ability of occupational therapists to demonstrate effectiveness in wheeled seating interventions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".