Effectiveness of the Wheelchair Skills Training Program: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review synthesizing the evidence for the effectiveness of the Wheelchair Skills Training Program (WSTP). DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Embase databases, as well as grey literature, up to 10 October 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of the WSTP. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers screened articles and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses (including sub-group analyses) were conducted for the Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) and WST Questionnaire (WST-Q) total capacity scores. We qualitatively assessed retention, WST/WST-Q subtotal and individual-skill capacity scores and other identified outcomes. The quality of evidence was determined using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Thirteen articles (581 participants) were included for analysis. The level of evidence was of moderate quality. The WSTP increased the post-training WST/WST-Q total capacity scores by 14.0% (95% CI: 7.4, 20.8; p < .0001) compared to no treatment, standard care or educational controls, a relative increase over baseline of 21.2%. Subgroup analyses showed that training was more effective for new wheelchair users. Retention of training effects was suggested by the absence of significant declines between tests post-training and at follow-up. The WSTP was found to have positive effects on some other outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that the WSTP is a safe intervention that has a clinically meaningful effect on WST/WST-Q capacity scores and some other outcomes. Implications for rehabilitation A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials on a total of 581 participants, using the Wheelchair Skills Training Program (WSTP) as the intervention, found that the WSTP increased Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) and WST Questionnaire (WST-Q) total capacity scores by 21.2% relative to baseline. Subgroup analyses showed that training was more effective for new wheelchair users. The WSTP was found to have positive effects on some other outcomes and no serious adverse events were reported. The WSTP warrants cautious implementation in clinical and educational settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".