Development of Wheeled Mobility indicators to advance the quality of spinal cord injury rehabilitation: SCI-High Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Wheeled mobility is critical for individuals with Spinal Cord Injury or Disease (SCI/D) related paralysis. The World Health Organization (WHO) developed guidelines highlighting eight steps in wheelchair service delivery: (1) referral and appointment; (2) assessment; (3) prescription; (4) funding and ordering; (5) product preparation; (6) fitting; (7) user training; and, (8) follow-up maintenance/repairs. This article describes the processes used to develop structure, process and outcome indicators that reflect the WHO guidelines within the Domain of Wheeled Mobility rehabilitation for Canadians.Methods: Wheeled mobility experts within the SCI-High Project Team used the WHO guideline to inform the Construct refinement and development of a Driver diagram. Following seven meetings, the Driver diagram and review of outcome measures and literature synthesis regarding wheelchair service delivery informed indicator selection and group consensus.Results: The structure indicator examines the proportion of SCI/D service providers within a rehabilitation program who have specialized wheelchair training to ensure prescription, preparation, fitting, and maintenance quality. The process indicator evaluates the average number of hours of wheelchair service delivery provided per patient during rehabilitation. The intermediary outcome indicator (rehabilitation discharge), is a target capacity score on the Wheelchair Skills Test Questionnaire (WST-Q). The final outcome indicators (at 18 months post rehabilitation admission) are the Life Space Assessment (LSA) and the Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale (WheelCon) short form mean scores.Conclusion: Routine implementation of the selected Wheeled Mobility structure, process and outcome indicators should measurably advance care within the Wheeled Mobility Domain for Canadians living with SCI/D by 2020.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".