Stakeholders' perspectives related to the development of a scooter training program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the perspectives of various stakeholders on the importance of and issues around scooter training and to identify elements recommended for a new scooter-training program. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to the past and present scooter users, their caregivers, scooter prescribers and vendors across Canada and internationally. These stakeholders were asked about the importance of scooter training, the training currently provided/available, and the content and format of training they preferred. RESULTS: The majority of stakeholders strongly agreed that scooter training is important to ameliorate skills and increase confidence. Only 25% of scooter users reported receiving training. There was consensus regarding the basic (e.g. on/off switch, control, speeds, battery maintenance) and advanced skills (e.g. completing community errands, using an elevator, public transit, crossing intersections) that should be included in scooter training. CONCLUSION: Despite its perceived importance, few users reported receiving training, which suggests a large unmet need. The findings of this study lay the groundwork for the development of a scooter training program that is intended to give users the skills to participate safely and confidently in their communities. Implications for Rehabilitation Respondents indicate that scooter training is important for skill development and self-confidence. Reported rates of scooter training are low. Respondents recommend that scooter training should occur in clients' homes and communities. Consideration of the person and their environment is important to ensure that training meets the needs and abilities of the scooter user.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".