A description of manual wheelchair skills training curriculum in entry-to-practice occupational and physical therapy programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the curriculum for manual wheelchair (MWC) skills training in entry-to-practice occupational (OT) and physical therapy (PT) programs in Canada. METHODS: An online survey was sent to 28 directors of entry-to-practice OT and PT programs in Canadian universities. Responses were solicited from individuals who could report about wheelchair skills training. Fourteen survey questions asked about: (1) demographic information, (2) specific curriculum content for MWC skills training, (3) teaching methods used, (4) instructional methods and estimated time used to teach MWC skills and (5) whether validated wheelchair skills training programs were used in curriculum development. RESULTS: Responses received from 21/28 programs, (OT-11/14; PT-10/14). About 16 of 21 programs included curriculum for MWC skills training. Informal hands-on instruction was the most common method used for teaching wheelchair skills (13/21), while multiple lectures were used the least (5/21). Only 8/21 used a validated wheelchair skills training program in curriculum development. CONCLUSION: Despite the public availability of a validated wheelchair skills program, there is little use of the program in entry-to-practice curriculum. Integrating online training programs into existing curricula or the development of post-professional training modules may help clinicians to better accommodate the mobility needs of the substantially increasing population with disabilities. Implications for Rehabilitation Current clinical curriculum includes basic wheelchair skills training, but not necessarily training in the advanced wheelchair skills that are needed for optimal wheelchair mobility. There is evidence for a standardized approach for providing wheelchair skills training, that may be administered through curriculum, online or through post-graduate training modules.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".