Rehabilitation in the real-life environment of a shopping mall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to explore how shopping malls could be used during rehabilitation and to identify the facilitators and barriers to their use. METHOD: Two focus groups, conducted with 15 rehabilitation professionals from various disciplines and working with people with disabilities of all ages were structured around two topics: (i) The usage of malls for rehabilitation and (ii) Factors that facilitate or limit rehabilitation professionals' use of the mall as an environment for clinical assessment and/or intervention. RESULTS: The thematic analysis revealed that shopping malls were used to achieve several rehabilitation goals targeting physical and cognitive skills, psychological health and socialization. This real-life environment is motivating and helps foster independence and normalization. Factors affecting mall use during rehabilitation included personal factors (e.g. clients' personality and level of readiness) and environmental factors (e.g. clinical context, accessibility of the mall and social attitudes of store owners). CONCLUSION: Shopping malls may be a relevant rehabilitation assessment and treatment environment that could contribute to optimizing community integration of people with disabilities. Implications for rehabilitation To ensure successful community reintegration, clients could be trained at some point during their rehabilitation, to perform activities in real-life settings, such as a shopping mall. Shopping malls appear to enable the attainment of rehabilitation goals targeting a variety of skills. This real-life environment appears to be motivating and helps foster independence and normalization. Factors felt to affect mall use during rehabilitation include personal factors (e.g. clients' personality and level of readiness) and environmental factors (e.g. clinical context, accessibility of the mall and social attitudes of store owners). The shopping mall may be an untapped resource as it appears to be a relevant rehabilitation assessment and treatment environment that could contribute to optimizing community integration of people with disabilities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".