MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 262: Speed and Distance Requirements for Community Ambulation: A Systematic Review

2012· review· en· W2579750328 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy M. Salbach, Kelly K. O’Brien, Dina Brooks, Emma Irvin, Rosemary Martino, Pam Takhar, Sylvia Chan, Jo-Anne Howe

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalInstitute for Work & HealthToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMEDLINEScopusCochrane LibraryInclusion (mineral)Grey literatureSystematic reviewMedicinePsychologyMedical educationNursingPolitical sciencePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: People with chronic conditions, such as stroke, commonly experience walking limitations and require rehabilitation services to optimize ability. Speed and distance requirements for walking around common community sites would help patients and health care professionals gauge readiness for community ambulation and set realistic goals relevant to activities patients wish to perform. Objective: To synthesize the research literature on speed and distance requirements for adults walking outside the home. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify full text peer-reviewed articles written in English, French or Spanish reporting distance and/or speed requirements for walking outside the home. Eight electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, ProQuest® digital dissertations and The Cochrane Library ) were searched until August 2011. The principal investigator’s library and reference lists of included studies were also reviewed. Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts. One reviewer determined inclusion and extracted data. A second reviewer independently verified data accuracy. Stakeholders and decision-makers from the physical therapy community were consulted throughout the course of the review to guide the team with respect to the review question, interpretation of results and message creation. Results: Six English-language studies (5 in the United States and 1 in Singapore) were included. In the American studies, community sites were measured in 26 cities/towns. Across all studies, 27 unique community sites were investigated. Sites most frequently examined include: banks, supermarkets, department stores, drugstores, post offices and physican’s offices. Superstores and club warehouses required the greatest average walking distance of 606.6 metres (m) and 676.8 m, respectively. In four studies that examined common sites using the same protocol, the average walking distance was highest for supermarkets, department stores and drugstores (Range 129-380 m) and lowest for banks, physican’s offices and post offices (Range 38-98 m). Walking distance requirements appeared to substantially increase with population size for some sites (supermarkets, department stores, drugstores and post offices) but not others (banks, physican’s offices). The median speed required to cross the street was lowest in rural areas (0.74 metres/second (m/s)) and highest in cities (1.06 m/s). Conclusions: In conclusion, our findings suggest that retail sites have the highest walking distance requirements and that site distances increase with population size. Walking speed requirements for crosswalks also appear to increase with population size. Clients and health professionals may use findings to help establish practical rehabilitation goals and to determine readiness for community ambulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.006
Bibliometrics0.0130.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207