Powerful or Powerless? Children’s, Parents’, and Occupational Therapists’ Perceptions of Powered Mobility
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: In Québec, Canada, the prevalence of children using powered mobility (PM) is not reflective of evidence supporting its use and for achieving developmental milestones. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of four key stakeholder groups in a metropolitan area regarding daily use, barriers, facilitators, and clinical practice associated with use of PM. Methods: Using convenience sampling, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with children (n = 6), parents (n = 2), rehabilitation center occupational therapists (OTs; n = 4), and special needs school-based OTs (n = 6). Drawings were used as a supplemental data collection strategy with children. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim to conduct thematic analysis. Results: Three overarching themes were identified: (1) “A sense of liberty, except…”, highlighting environmental obstacles reducing social participation; (2) “A necessity, for better or for worse,” covering benefits and drawbacks of PM; and (3) “First choice versus last resort,” raising clinical differences related to provision, assessment, and training. Conclusions: Stakeholders’ perceptions illustrated benefits of PM, yet use is contingent on the physical, institutional, and societal environments, leading stakeholders to feel both powerful and powerless as users, parents, or clinicians.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it