‘Power in Mobility’: parent and therapist perspectives of the experiences of children learning to use powered mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to gain insights, from the perspectives of both parents and pediatric therapists, into the experiences of children learning to use a power mobility device. METHOD: The purposive sample included 33 participants: 14 parents of children who were learning, or had learned, to use a power mobility device and 19 pediatric occupational therapists or physical therapists. Data were gathered face-to-face via seven focus groups consisting of either parents or therapists, and eight one-on-one interviews. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) 'Power in mobility' described how learning to use powered mobility changed more than just a child's locomotor abilities; (2) 'There is no recipe' revealed how learning to use powered mobility occurred along an individualized continuum of skills that often unfolded over time in a cyclical process; (3) 'Emotional journey' explored how learning to use powered mobility was an emotionally charged undertaking for all those involved. INTERPRETATION: Learning to use a power mobility device is a complex process that often requires perseverance and determination on the part of the child, family, and therapist. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Powered mobility use impacts more than just a child's locomotor abilities. Learning to use a power mobility device is a highly individualized process. Learning to use powered mobility may be an emotionally charged process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".