Psychosocial Impact of Powered Wheelchair, Users’ Satisfaction and Their Relation to Social Participation
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
Several studies showed positive effects of assistive technologies on psychosocial impact and participation of adults with mobility impairments. The purpose of this study was to assess the psychosocial and participation impact of powered wheelchairs. Participants were thirty persons with disabilities who use powered wheelchairs with diverse medical conditions. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale and the Activities and Participation Profile Related to Mobility were used, in addition to demographic, clinical and wheelchair related questions. The participants were satisfied with both the assistive technology and related services, with the lowest satisfaction scores belonging to those who had been using their wheelchairs for a longer period of time. We noticed significant restrictions in participation mostly among persons with longer wheelchair utilization. The most satisfied were the ones with better performance in terms of social participation. Psychosocial scores showed a positive impact with higher adaptability among persons who transitioned from a manual compared to those who already had a powered wheelchair. There was a positive psychosocial impact and therefore an increase in quality of life of its users.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it