The potential impact of intelligent power wheelchair use on social participation: perspectives of users, caregivers and clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore power wheelchair users', caregivers' and clinicians' perspectives regarding the potential impact of intelligent power wheelchair use on social participation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with power wheelchair users (n = 12), caregivers (n = 4) and clinicians (n = 12). An illustrative video was used to facilitate discussion. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified based on the experiences of the power wheelchair users, caregivers and clinicians: (1) increased social participation opportunities, (2) changing how social participation is experienced and (3) decreased risk of accidents during social participation. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest that an intelligent power wheelchair would enhance social participation in a variety of important ways, thereby providing support for continued design and development of this assistive technology. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: An intelligent power wheelchair has the potential to: Increase social participation opportunities by overcoming challenges associated with navigating through crowds and small spaces. Change how social participation is experienced through "normalizing" social interactions and decreasing the effort required to drive a power wheelchair. Decrease the risk of accidents during social participation by reducing the need for dangerous compensatory strategies and minimizing the impact of the physical environment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".