Power wheelchair driving challenges in the community: a users’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is limited information on the difficulties individuals experience in manoeuvring their power wheelchairs during daily activities. The aim of this study was to describe the nature and context of power wheelchair driving challenges from the perspective of the user. METHODS: A qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with power wheelchair users. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: Twelve experienced power wheelchair users were interviewed. Findings revealed that power wheelchair driving difficulties were related to the accomplishment of activities of daily living, and the influence of environmental context. Four key themes emerged: (1) difficulties accessing and using public buildings-facilities, (2) outdoor mobility, (3) problems in performing specific wheelchair mobility tasks/manoeuvres and (4) barriers and circumstances that are temporary, unforeseen or specific to a particular context. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study furthers our understanding of the driving difficulties powered wheelchair (PW) users experience during daily activities. This knowledge will assist clinicians and researchers in two areas: in choosing assessment measures that are ecologically valid for power wheelchair users; and, in identifying and refining the content of training programs specific to the use of power wheelchairs. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: A better understanding of the everyday challenges individuals experience in driving their power wheelchair will assist clinicians and researchers in: Choosing assessment measures and identifying training programs for this population. Refining the content of power wheelchair training 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".