The Wheelchair Procurement Process: Perspectives of Clients and Prescribers
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
BACKGROUND: Increasing choices in assistive technology have made the process of procuring a wheelchair more complex and challenging. PURPOSE: To explore the intricacies of the procurement process from the perspectives of clients and therapists. METHODS: Thirty-four participants were interviewed, including 13 wheelchair prescribers, 14 wheelchair users, and 7 wheelchair associates (family members and caregivers). FINDINGS: Analysis revealed five main themes. "Who decides?" described varying degrees of client involvement in the procurement process. "Expert knowledge" reflected the expert knowledge that all parties possessed. "Form versus function"captured the primary and, at times, conflicting outcomes that participants wanted to achieve. "Fitting in" depicted the environmental factors that affected wheelchair procurement. "(Re)solutions" illustrated strategies that participants felt improved the process. IMPLICATIONS: This study reveals clients' experiences with wheelchair procurement, identifies potential issues therapists may encounter, and suggests possible remedies they might consider when prescribing wheelchairs within a client-centred framework.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it