Evaluating the Functionality and Usability of Two Novel Wheelchair Anti‐Rollback Devices for Ramp Ascent in Manual Wheelchair Users With Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Difficulty ascending ramps and inclines with a manual wheelchair adversely affects the everyday mobility and overall quality of life of manual wheelchair users. Currently, various anti-rollback devices are available to assist manual wheelchair users to ascend ramps and inclines. However, these devices have 2 main shortcomings: restriction to backward motion limiting recovery from an overturning wheelchair, which is a safety concern; and difficulty in engaging/disengaging the device while on the ramp. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the functionality and usability of 2 novel wheelchair anti-rollback devices developed to address these shortcomings (prototypes "Wheel" and "Brake"). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Rehabilitation research facility. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve adult participants with chronic spinal cord injury. METHODS: Participants completed training and tested with both the wheelchair anti-rollback devices on a 7.3-m-long ramp. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Number of stops, perceived physical exertion, pain, and ease of use of these devices as participants maneuvered their wheelchairs up a 7.3-m ramp were assessed. Participants also evaluated their satisfaction with the usability of both the devices using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0). RESULTS: Both prototypes evaluated overcame the limitations of the existing anti-rollback devices. Nonparametric statistical tests showed that participants rated both prototypes similarly for the overall functional and usability aspects. However, the participants' satisfactory rating were higher for the prototype "Brake" than for the prototype "Wheel" based on a functional aspect (ie, engaging/disengaging easiness), and higher for Wheel than for Brake, based on a usability aspect (prototype size). CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative and quantitative outcomes of this investigation, based on the usability and functional evaluations, provided useful information for the improvement in the design of both anti-rollback devices, which may allow manual wheelchair users to manage ramp ascent more safely and easily. Further evaluations with a different SCI population is recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".