A longitudinal study assessing the maintenance condition of cadres of four types of wheelchairs provided in low-resource areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheelchair breakdowns increase the risk of injury and limit the mobility of wheelchair users. In the endeavour to meet the enormous global need for wheelchairs, manufacturers of wheelchairs for low-resource settings face a cost-benefit tension between affordability and durability. Field studies are needed to provide feedback on durability. Four manufacturers provided cadres of wheelchairs to the organization providing rehabilitation to students at a boarding school for children with disabilities in a low-resource area. The Wheelchair Components Questionnaire for Condition was used to evaluate wheelchair maintenance condition at several time intervals after fitting. Because the maintenance regime was not identical for the four wheelchair types, wheelchair types were not compared. Analysis of variance indicated differences in condition across time and between wheelchair components. Tukey's simultaneous comparison of means indicated that across the entire group, brakes, seats, casters and foot rests received lower ratings than frame. Preliminary data after each iteration of this study were provided to manufactures and resulted in responsive design changes. Implications for Rehabilitation Longitudinal studies with the Wheelchair Components Questionnaire for Condition (WCQc) have enabled manufacturers to make responsive design improvements. Additional studies could be done with other wheelchair types to result in responsive positive design changes for those wheelchairs as well. The WCQc can be used in studies on wheelchair condition even when records of repair history are not reliably available, a situation which is not uncommon in low-resource areas. Data sets collected at an individual clinic uses the WCQc could focus attention on wheelchair components needing regular repair. With that data in mind, the maintenance regime could be modified to respond and in so doing improve wheelchair condition and reduce loss of mobility or risk of injury. Organizations involved in funding wheelchairs for a particular location could use data from longitudinal studies done with the WCQc at that location to inform purchasing decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".