Powered Mobility for Middle-Aged and Older Adults
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
OBJECTIVE: To identify the outcomes of power mobility devices for middle-aged and older adult users, and to critically appraise the research evidence. DESIGN: Systematic review of primary source studies involving adults aged 50 and over using power mobility devices (1996-2007). Articles were (i) mapped to the Taxonomy of Assistive Technology Device Outcomes, which describes categories of impact of assistive devices from the vantages of effectiveness, social significance, and subjective well-being; and (ii) appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: This review retained 19 studies and identified 52 different categories of impacts of power mobility devices spanning the three vantages of the taxonomy. The coverage of outcome dimensions was not as extensive for adults age 50 and over as it was for mixed-age groups. Most of the research designs were assigned very low evidence grades. Three studies were low to moderate in quality of evidence, among which one was a randomized trial. CONCLUSIONS: A vast array of potential impacts of powered mobility devices have been described in the last decade. The level of quality of this evidence is improving, but most of these studies were not designed to verify causal relationships, and this is largely responsible for the absence of unequivocal evidence for directly attributing benefits to devices themselves and for quantifying relationships between power mobility device intervention and outcome. To raise the level of evidence about power mobility device interventions in older adults, studies are needed that use prospective designs, better-defined user groups, and well-grounded conceptual frameworks for measuring interventions and outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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