The Impact of Supported Standing on Well-Being and Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the characteristics of people who use standing devices and to explore their degree of device use, experiences with and reasons for standing, and perceived impact of the use of standing devices on well-being and quality of life (QOL). METHOD: Anyone with a current prescription at the time for the study in any of five counties in Sweden (n=545), according to a national register of prescribed devices, was invited to participate in a descriptive survey; the questionnaire was mailed to respondents for self-rating. RESULTS: People between 2 and 86 years old were represented among respondents. Standing time decreased with increased age. Respondents who were totally dependent for mobilization or who had received their standing device more than 5 years earlier used their device most frequently. The most common reasons given for standing were to improve circulation and well-being and to reduce stiffness. CONCLUSION: It is important to pay attention to the experiences of standing for this vulnerable group of people, as the use of a standing device has a positive impact on well-being and QOL.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".