User satisfaction with mobility assistive devices: An important element in the rehabilitation process
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: An assistive device often means an evident change in a person's ability, more easy to notice than the effects of most of other types of physiotherapy or occupational therapy intervention. In spite of this, there is very little evidence in this area. PURPOSE: The objective was to follow-up user satisfaction with and the use and usefulness of rollators and manual wheelchairs. The objective was also to determine any difference in satisfaction between users of the two different types of mobility assistive products. METHODS: A random sample of 262 users participated in the study, 175 rollator users and 87 wheelchair users. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology-QUEST 2.0 and an additional questionnaire were used for data collection. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction with both types of device was high and most clients reported use of their device on a daily basis. There was a difference in how the users estimated the usefulness and other characteristics as well as some service aspects related to prescription and use of the two types of device. Most users reported not having had any follow-up; however, most users had not experienced any need for one. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized follow-up will give rehabilitation professionals continuous and valuable information about the effect of and satisfaction with assistive devices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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