Housing priorities of persons with a spinal cord injury and their household members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the housing priorities of families living with persons with a spinal cord injury (SCI). METHOD: A new tool, the psycho-environmental housing priorities (PEHP), was developed following the principles of Q-methodology and based on the psycho-environmental model. The PEHP includes 48 items concerning housing needs that were presented to 29 persons with SCI and to 30 of their household members to determine the more important needs in their home. RESULTS: Four different profiles of housing priorities emerged from the analysis, with persons with SCI and household members being dispersed across these profiles. Some needs, such as social contact and security, were identified as priorities in all the profiles while others, such as pleasure, were unique to some profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the heterogeneity of housing needs and the importance of addressing each family as unique when considering housing. The results also show that some housing needs ought to be considered because they were identified as important by everyone. Rehabilitation professionals could use the PEHP as a tool to help households living with a person with SCI plan their housing modifications to better meet the needs of all inhabitants. Implications for Rehabilitation Spinal cord injury causes impairment that significantly alters the relationship with the housing environment and modifies the relative importance of housing needs. Persons with SCI and household members have varying housing needs, as suggested by the identification of four distinct profiles of housing priorities using the psycho-environmental housing priorities (PEHP). The security and social contact needs emerge as important in all profiles and may be considered "universal needs". Rehabilitation professionals may use the PEHP as a tool to help households living with a person with SCI plan their housing modifications, for instance to identify compatible and conflicting priorities, and develop solutions agreeable to everyone. Using PEHP in the modification process could contribute to the household's feeling of autonomy and control.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.007 |
| 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".