Needs for mobility devices, home modifications and personal assistance among Canadians with disabilities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with disabilities often require assistive devices, modifications to their home environment, and physical assistance to facilitate mobility. This study examines self-reported met and unmet needs of people with disabilities who use wheeled mobility devices, compared with non-users. DATA AND METHODS: The 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability followed up with 45,442 individuals who reported a disability on the 2011 National Household Survey, and obtained a 75% response rate. Descriptive statistics with variance estimates and 95% confidence intervals were used to compare wheeled mobility device users and non-users. RESULTS: Nearly 10% of wheeled mobility device users identified an unmet need for an additional mobility device. Compared with non-users, they were twice as likely to modify their home with a ramp and three times as likely to install a lift. The prevalence of unmet need for each type of residence adaptation among wheeled mobility device users was at least double that of non-users. Wheeled mobility device users received assistance with an average of 4.4 activities, compared with 2.0 for non-users, and reported an average of 1.9 activities for which assistance was needed but not received. About one in three relied on paid assistance; for 14% of those who paid for assistance, out-of-pocket expenses amounted to $10,000 or more annually, compared with 2% among non-users. INTERPRETATION: Wheeled mobility device users reported a higher prevalence of met and unmet needs for residence modifications than did non-users. They required help with more activities of life on a more frequent basis, with greater dependence on paid individuals, resulting in higher out-of-pocket expenses. Power and manual wheelchair users reported greater needs than did mobility scooter 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".