Satisfaction related to wheelchair use in older adults in both nursing homes and community dwelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Older adults commonly use wheelchairs for mobility impairments regardless of their living situations. However, limited outcomes data are available to determine quality of the wheelchairs that older Americans are receiving, as well as their satisfaction with wheelchair service delivery programs. The purpose of this article was to analyze satisfaction data collected from three cohorts of older individuals living at nursing homes and in community settings. Ninety participants were residents in VA (n = 60). METHODS: One hundred thirty two older adults completed the standardized Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology. Ninety participants were residents in VA (n = 30) or private nursing homes (n = 30), and 42 were community dwelling participants. Those enrolled were either independent manual or power wheelchairs users. RESULTS: The community dwelling group reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with their manual wheelchairs and service delivery when compared with the private nursing home participants (4.3 versus 2.9, p = 0.002). The satisfaction was also higher for VA nursing homes than private (3.9 versus 2.9, p = 0.004). No significant differences were reported for satisfaction levels regarding powered wheelchairs use between three groups. CONCLUSION: Level of satisfaction should be incorporated as an outcomes measure for evaluating wheelchair prescriptions and service delivery programs. This study also supports the establishment of a re-evaluation process of wheelchair fit as the users' age, to aide in provision of the best quality wheelchairs and service delivery programs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".