Tracking Mobility-Related Assistive Technology in an Outcomes Study
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
The objective of this follow-up study was to describe changes in the mobility-related assistive technology devices (ATDs) that are used from shortly after discharge from a hospital setting until 5-6 months later. One hundred and thirty-nine participants who had one or more mobility ATDs (canes, crutches, walkers, and wheelchairs) that had been recommended during hospitalization were interviewed an average of 5.5 weeks after discharge and an average of 23.2 weeks later. Information about mobility ATD usage was obtained by questionnaire during face-to-face interviews. The SF-36 was used to assess perceived health status, both physical and mental, as an additional outcome. Results show that at follow-up, only 23.3% of participants were using the ATD provided at baseline as their primary aid. Seven distinct groups of participants were noted based on individual experience with ATD use from the time of discharge to follow-up. Those groups varied according to continued versus discontinued use of an ATD, single versus multiple ATD use across time, and primary versus secondary importance attributed to the ATD. The groups also differed in terms of their differential association with rehabilitation diagnosis, age, as well as physical and mental perceived health status. The findings have implications for designing ATD outcome studies and for interpreting the relationship of ATD outcomes to other variables. The information about changes in mobility-related ATDs can also help rehabilitation specialists at the point of device referral target their patients for interventions that will either increase their adherence to device prescriptions or support nondevice strategies for managing disabilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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