MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262965743 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20140537

Health, Personal, and Environmental Predictors of Wheelchair-Use Confidence in Adult Wheelchair Users

2015· article· en· W2262965743 on OpenAlexafffund
Brodie M. Sakakibara, William C. Miller, Janice J. Eng, François Routhier, Catherine L. Backman

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité LavalGF Strong Rehabilitation Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWheelchairConfidence intervalMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There are no predictive models of wheelchair-use confidence. Therefore, clinicians and researchers are limited in their ability to screen for and identify wheelchair users who may be more prone to low wheelchair-use confidence and may benefit from clinical intervention. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify health-related, personal, and environmental factors that predict perceived wheelchair-use confidence in community-dwelling adults who use manual wheelchairs. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted. METHODS: Community-dwelling manual wheelchair users (N=124) were included in the study if they were ≥50 years of age, had ≥6 months of wheelchair use experience, and had no cognitive impairment. The Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale was used to assess wheelchair-use confidence. The sociodemographic information form, Functional Comorbidity Index, Seating Identification Tool, Interpersonal Support and Evaluation List, and Home and Community Environment Instrument captured the independent variables. Blocks of health, personal, and environmental variables were sequentially entered into the regression model. RESULTS: Five personal variables (age, standardized beta [β]=-0.18; sex, β=-0.26; daily hours of wheelchair occupancy, β=0.20; wheelchair-use training, β=0.20; and wheelchair-use assistance, β=-0.34) and one environmental variable (need for seating intervention, β=-0.18) were statistically significant predictors, explaining 44% of the confidence variance. LIMITATIONS: The sample comprised volunteers and, therefore, may underrepresent or overrepresent particular groups within the population. The study's cross-sectional research design does not allow for conclusions to be made regarding causality. CONCLUSION: Older women who use wheelchairs and who require assistance with wheelchair use may have low wheelchair-use confidence. The same is true for individuals who have no formal wheelchair-use training, who are in need of a seating intervention, and who report few hours of daily wheelchair use. These wheelchair users may require clinical attention and benefit from 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 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207