A review of factors influencing participation in social and community activities for wheelchair users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify factors associated with participation in social and community activities for adult wheelchair users (WCUs). DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and EMBASE. STUDY SELECTION: Quantitative and qualitative peer-reviewed publications were included, which were written in English, reported original research and investigated factors associated with social and community participation in adult WCUs. DATA EXTRACTION: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used. Factors were organized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-five studies were selected: two of power WCUs, 10 of manual WCUs and 23 of both. Six qualitative studies, ranging in quality from 8/10 to 9/10 and 29 quantitative studies were included, ranging in quality from 4/15 to 11/15. Fifteen body function, 4 activity, 5 participation, 15 environmental and 14 personal factors were found to be associated with social and community participation. CONCLUSIONS: Social and community participation of WCUs is associated with factors from all ICF domains. Wheelchair factors, accessibility, skills with wheelchair use, pain, finances and education are modifiable factors frequently reported to be associated with participation. Experimental research focusing on modifiable factors is needed to further our understanding of factors influencing participation among WCUs. Implications for Rehabilitation Wheelchair factors, including comfort and durability, are associated with participation and may be targeted in clinical intervention. Wheelchair skills are clinically modifiable and have been shown to improve participation in manual wheelchair users. Body functions (e.g. confidence, depression and fatigue) and personal factors (e.g. finances and level of education) may be considered for clinical intervention.
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".