Electronic aids to daily living and quality of life for persons with tetraplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the satisfaction with quality of life (QOL) of adults with tetraplegia from spinal cord injury (SCI) who use and do not use electronic aids to daily living (EADLs). METHOD: This study used a cross-sectional design. Thirty-six persons with spinal cord injuries or conditions at or above C5/6 level participated. Fifteen participants used EADL at home and 21 formed the comparison group of non-users of EADL; all were living in the community. We used the Quality of Life Profile-Physical Disabilities (QOLP-PD) to examine participant's QOL. RESULTS: Both groups rated the levels of importance of all aspects of QOL equally. The EADL users rated their satisfaction with QOL significantly higher for total QOLP-PD scores and for four of the nine domains, including all three domains of belonging. The groups did not differ in age, FIM scores, level of education, and hours of paid attendant care. The EADL user group had significantly more males than females, and had higher levels of SCI. CONCLUSIONS: EADLs appear to contribute to the experience of greater subjective QOL for persons with severe physical disability from high SCI. Prospective cohort studies designs that employ methods and analytic plans to study the causal effect of EADLs on QOL are recommended. The QOLP-PD was found to be a valid measure of QOL for this 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".