Influences of Wheelchair-Related Efficacy on Life-Space Mobility in Adults Who Use a Wheelchair and Live in the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-efficacy has important implications for health and functioning in people with limited mobility. However, the influence of self-efficacy on mobility in adults who use wheelchairs has yet to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to: (1) estimate the direct association between wheelchair use self-efficacy and life-space mobility and (2) investigate an indirect effect through wheelchair skills. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Participants (N=124) were adults who use a wheelchair, live in the community, and were 50 years of age and older (X̅=59.67, range=50-84), with at least 6 months of experience with manual wheelchair use; 60% were men. The 20-item Life-Space Assessment, the 65-item Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale, and the 32-item Wheelchair Skills Test-Questionnaire were used to measure life-space mobility, self-efficacy, and wheelchair skills, respectively. RESULTS: Self-efficacy had a statistically significant association with life-space mobility (nonstandardized regression coefficient=0.23, 95% confidence interval=0.07, 0.39) after controlling for sex, number of comorbidities, geographic location, and assistance with using a wheelchair. This model accounted for 37.1% of the life-space mobility variance, and the unique contribution of self-efficacy was 3.5%. The indirect effect through wheelchair skills was also statistically significant (point estimate=0.21, 95% bootstrapped confidence interval=0.05, 0.43) and accounted for 91.3% of the direct effect of self-efficacy on life-space mobility. This model accounted for 39.2% of the life-space mobility variance. LIMITATIONS: Causality could not be established because of the study design. The self-report nature of data from volunteers may be influenced by recall bias, social desirability, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Wheelchair use self-efficacy had both direct and indirect associations with life-space mobility after controlling for confounding variables. Interventions targeted toward improving self-efficacy may lead to improvements in life-space mobility.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".