Development of a toolkit for educators of the wheelchair service provision process: the Seating and Mobility Academic Resource Toolkit (SMART)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient wheelchair training among rehabilitation professionals has been identified as an important factor that hinders access to appropriate wheelchair services. The aim of this study was to develop a toolkit to promote the integration of wheelchair education into academic curricula of rehabilitation programs. METHODS: A participatory action research design was carried out in three phases: (1) development of the Initial and Alpha Versions involving secondary analyses of surveys (n = 72), interviews (n = 14), and academic training partners meeting presentations (n = 16); (2) development of the Beta Version based on feedback from collaborators (n = 21); and (3) development of the Launch Version based on feedback from participants attending presentations of the Beta Version at conferences, symposiums, and webinars (n = 94). RESULTS: Over 100 individuals participated in reviews of the Seating and Mobility Academic Resource Toolkit (SMART). Initial development addressed modifiable factors that perpetuate insufficient wheelchair education in academic curricula (e.g., limited awareness, limited expertise). Internal feedback on the web-based Alpha Version resulted in modifications of appearance and multimedia, structure and design, and navigation. External feedback then led primarily to fine-tuning the navigation of SMART. Positive reviews were received from global wheelchair professionals (i.e., educators, researchers, clinicians). The Launch Version of the SMART (smart.wheelchairnetwork.org) provides a forum for sharing and accessing resources to inform the integration and enhancement of wheelchair content into university rehabilitation programs. CONCLUSIONS: As an open-source open-access online "living document," SMART has the potential to promote the integration of wheelchair service provision education into academic curricula of rehabilitation programs. Future studies will explore the ease of use and the effectiveness of the SMART.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".