Rehabilitation strategies enhancing participation in shopping malls for persons living with a disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: After rehabilitation, it is not clear the extent to which persons living with a disability return to their former activities in the community, such as going to shopping malls. Rehabilitation professionals are faced with the challenge to adequately prepare their clients to resume community participation. The purpose of this study was to identify rehabilitation strategies aimed at preparing clients to engage in activities in shopping malls. METHOD: Twenty-two participants including 16 rehabilitation clinicians and 6 persons living with a disability participated in four nominal group sessions. Participants were questioned on current or potential rehabilitation strategies carried out to enhance participation in shopping malls for persons living with a disability. Discussions were audio-recorded and qualitative content analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Participants mentioned strategies that were either carried out by the clinician, or in collaboration with other parties. The latter type of strategies was either carried out with the collaboration of the client, the interdisciplinary team, the relatives, or community organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation clinicians have a role to play in preparing persons living with a disability to resume activities in a shopping mall. Additionally, therapeutic interventions in community settings may enhance the participation of rehabilitation clients in their everyday activities. Implications for rehabilitation Many strategies are currently used in rehabilitation to prepare persons living with a disability to resume shopping activities. Clinicians could implement shopping-oriented rehabilitation strategies with the client and/or with other rehabilitation partners. Involving clients in activities related to shopping might enhance their participation in shopping malls after rehabilitation. Rehabilitation clinicians can be facilitators for people living with a disability to reach optimal participation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".