Experiences with Using a Pushrim-Activated Power-Assisted Wheelchair for Community-Based Occupations: A Qualitative Exploration
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
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists strive to engage individuals in occupation and enhance community access through wheelchair prescription. Previous research with pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchairs identifies a reduction in the physical demands of manual wheelchair propulsion but limited evidence exists regarding user evaluation in context. PURPOSE: This study explored the experience of using a power-assisted wheelchair in the community. METHODS: Eight individuals who used both a power and manual device participated in focus groups after trialing a power-assist wheelchair for three weeks. Data were analyzed using a qualitative description approach. FINDINGS: Three themes emerged from our analysis: relative advantages and disadvantages; environmental factors that affect accessibility; and evaluation of mobility device. IMPLICATIONS: Participants perceived the power-assist as improving performance and accessibility compared with the manual wheelchair, increasing the potential scope of occupations and environments, but not replacing their power mobility device. Sufficient time for adjustment of both user and device was important.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it