Randomized controlled trial protocol feasibility: The Wheelchair Self-Efficacy Enhanced for Use (WheelSeeU)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Manual wheelchairs (MWCs) can improve mobility and social participation for individuals who experience difficulty walking; however, older adults receive little training for wheelchair use. The Wheelchair Self-Efficacy Enhanced for Use (WheelSeeU) research program provides peer-led training that may positively influence wheelchair use while reducing clinician burden. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of WheelSeeU. METHOD: A randomized control trial (RCT) recruits and randomly assigns 40 MWC users (55+ years). Feasibility indicators assessing process, resource, management, and treatment issues are measured, and clinical outcomes (wheelchair skills, safety, confidence, mobility, social participation, quality of life, health utility) are collected at three time points. IMPLICATIONS: WheelSeeU provides an innovative approach for teaching wheelchair skills to an aging population that may improve wheelchair use and decrease clinician burden. Since RCTs are expensive and challenging in rehabilitation, establishing feasibility prior to larger effectiveness trials is prudent.
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 | 0.047 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.014 |
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".