MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134296293 · doi:10.5014/ajot.58.2.221

Acceptance and Meanings of Wheelchair Use in Senior Stroke Survivors

2004· article· en· W2134296293 on OpenAlexaff
D Barker, Denise Reid, Cheryl Cott

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. John's Rehab Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairManual wheelchairStroke (engine)PsychologyQualitative researchPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyGerontologyMedicineEngineeringSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain understanding of the lived experience of senior stroke survivors who used prescribed wheelchairs in their homes and communities. The study involved semistructured, in-depth interviews that were conducted with 10 participants, ages 70 to 80 years old, who had used a wheelchair for a mean of 5.6 years. A constant comparative inductive method of analysis was performed. Three different categories of acceptance of wheelchair use were identified; reluctant acceptance, grateful acceptance, and internal acceptance. Increased mobility, varied social response, and loss of some valued roles were common to all three wheelchair acceptance categories. Aspects of level of burden, freedom, and spontaneity varied in degree among the three acceptance categories. As the wheelchair provided opportunity for increased continuity in the lives of these stroke survivors, it appeared to be accepted more fully and viewed more positively. Prestroke lifestyle and values need to be carefully considered in order to maximize acceptance of wheelchair use among senior stroke survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207