The child and family experience of power mobility: a qualitative synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to critically synthesize qualitative evidence regarding the child and family experience of power mobility, and to examine how this evidence fits with current theoretical concepts. METHOD: Electronic database/hand searches were undertaken in September 2012 and updated in February 2014. The searches were restricted to qualitative studies published in English before February 2014 that included at least one child under the age of 19 with a disability and described an outcome related to the use of power mobility. Inclusion criteria were set a priori. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and extracted data. McMaster qualitative review forms were used for quality appraisal. RESULTS: Of 259 titles, 21 met inclusion criteria. From 143 codes, 15 second-order themes were developed using constant comparison and analysis. Three overarching themes emerged: power mobility experience promotes developmental change and independent mobility; power mobility enhances social relationships and engagement in meaningful life experiences; and power mobility access and use is influenced by factors in the physical, social, and attitudinal environment. INTERPRETATION: This qualitative research provides rich and rigorous evidence supporting the benefits of power mobility for children and families. Numerous factors, which warrant careful consideration, influence power mobility access and use.
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 | 0.042 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".