Factors affecting measures of activities and participation in persons with mobility impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined important factors affecting activities and participation of persons with mobility impairments. METHOD: This mixed methods study employed grounded theory approaches and data conversion to quantify impact of environmental and personal factors on standard measures of activities and participation. Semi-structured interviews of participants with mobility impairments were conducted to identify key factors and the magnitude of their influence on activities of daily living and participation. Participants were individually scored on the Barthel index (BI) and the Participation scale (P-scale); BI scores that would have been obtained without associated factors were estimated. Average cumulative impact of factors on BI and P-scale scores were estimated to identify factors with the greatest numeric impact. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants identified 258 factors that impacted activities. For the BI, adaptive equipment, gait aids, wheelchairs, scooters and home modifications were most influential. For the P-scale, personality, community and home accessibility, level of impairment, mobility aids and transportation were among the most influential. CONCLUSION: Convergent results through various methods suggest that reporting of contextual factors that may affect scores on standardised measures of activities and participation may assist in interpretation, and identification of interventional needs at the individual or system levels.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".