The meaning ascribed to wheeled mobility devices by individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters: a metasynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesize qualitative study findings on the meaning ascribed to wheelchairs and wheeled mobility devices (WMD) by WMD users. METHOD: Bibliographic databases were systematically searched up to January 2015 to identify relevant papers. Reviewers selected studies, assessed methodological quality and thematically synthesized findings using a metasynthesis process described by Thomas and Harden (2008). RESULTS: Twenty articles were included. Four descriptive themes emerged: physical environment interaction; sociocultural experiences; participation in activities and occupations; and WMD-self relationship. WMD use was found to be a complex experience that can fluctuate through interaction with aspects of the environment and opportunities for participation. The analytic theme, dynamic duality of WMD experience, addressed the simultaneous enabling and disabling aspects of WMD use. CONCLUSIONS: Metasyntheses enable researchers to gain a deeper understanding of issues by examining findings across studies. Findings of this study provide a framework for understanding the complexity of WMD use. The framework has practical applications for clinicians and users of WMD in understanding the experience of WMD to be neither singular nor static. Implications for Rehabilitation The meaning of wheeled mobility device (WMD) use is dynamically influenced by the environment and opportunities afforded for occupational and social participation. A duality of experiences can emerge for WMD users, where wheeled mobility use can be at the same time positive and negative, based on the interaction with the environment. Clinicians need to determine the meaning that each individual user ascribes to the WMD, and to consider how that meaning may change over time. By understanding the meaning ascribed to WMD use by individuals, clinicians can be better prepared to work with the WMD users to address negative reinforcers of the experience in physical and sociocultural environments as well as highlighting the positive experiences.
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 | 0.050 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".