A LONGITUDINAL PERSPECTIVE ON POWER MOBILITY USE BY OLDER USERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power wheelchairs (PWC) are essential devices, especially for people with severe disability. Research has suggested that PWC can have a positive impact on mobility, participation and well-being. However, they may also be problematic in terms of usability, safety, and cost. Currently, little is known about power mobility use over time. This study investigates user experiences of PWC over time, from a life-span perspective. A series of four semi-structured qualitative interviews (baseline, 3 months, 1 year, 2 years) were conducted with 21 participants recruited in Vancouver, Montreal and Québec city (Canada). They shared their daily experience of power mobility, the changes in use over time, and what were the barriers and facilitators in their environment. The analysis identified four main themes. “Things are different now” described how participants use of power mobility changed over time because of their changing physical capabilities and evolving power mobility experience. “Being in the world” explored the feeling of freedom and the opportunities of participation associated with the PWC. “It’s my legs” explored how participants learned to use their devices and how it related to their sense of self. “Not sure what to expect” described the physical and attitudinal barriers encountered. The findings emphasize that the experience of power mobility is not static. This study provides new insights on the experience of a group of PWC users, and thus will help stakeholders to understand the complexity of power mobility provision and user’s engagement in meaningful activities
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".