Power mobility for children: a survey study of American and Canadian therapists’ perspectives and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore the views and practices of paediatric occupational therapists and physical therapists in Canada and the USA regarding the implementation of power mobility for children with mobility limitations. METHOD: This descriptive study utilized a web-based survey that included questions pertaining to therapists' decisions to trial and use power mobility, agreement or disagreement with statements developed from published practice considerations regarding power mobility, and the frequency of performing tasks related to power mobility prescription and training. RESULTS: Most respondents reported that child characteristics (e.g. cognition, safety awareness) were important factors in decision-making about power mobility, whereas other child characteristics (e.g. communication abilities, age) were not as important. Family resources and home accessibility were also not considered important. The average age at which respondents considered power mobility for children was 2 years 3 months. The majority of respondents agreed with statements developed from published practice considerations and most frequently performed various power mobility tasks twice a year or less. INTERPRETATION: Although most respondents appeared to have positive views regarding power mobility, few appeared to actively perform power mobility tasks in their practice. Resources to support therapists in the early introduction of power mobility may be beneficial. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Occupational and physical therapists positively view early introduction of power mobility for children with mobility limitations. Few therapists actively provide early power mobility experiences. Power mobility training and monitoring power mobility devices are important therapist roles.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".