Perspectives of wheelchair users with spinal cord injury on fall circumstances and fall prevention: A mixed methods approach using photovoice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Wheelchair users with spinal cord injury are at a high risk of falls. However, the perspectives of wheelchair users with spinal cord injury on their fall circumstances and their preferences for fall prevention strategies/interventions remain understudied. Therefore, we aimed to: a) describe the circumstances of falls experienced by wheelchair users with spinal cord injury over a six-month period, b) explore their perspectives of why falls occurred in certain situations, and c) explore their perspectives on recommended content/structure of fall prevention strategies/interventions. METHODS: This sequential explanatory mixed methods study had two phases. Phase I involved tracking of falls experienced by wheelchair users with spinal cord injury over six months, in which participants completed a survey after experiencing a fall to track the number/circumstance of each fall. Data from the surveys were descriptively reported. Phase II involved a photovoice focus group discussion of the survey findings and their preferences for fall prevention strategies/interventions. Data from the focus group discussion were analyzed using a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-two participants completed phase I. More than half of the participants fell at least once in six months. Falls commonly occurred in the afternoon during a transfer, or when participants were wheeling over uneven ground. One-third of the falls caused an injury. Eleven participants that fell during phase I participated in the focus group. Two main themes were identified from the discussion: 1) "circumstances surrounding the falls" (e.g. when falls occurred, the home is a 'safe space') and 2) "suggestions and preferences for fall prevention strategies/interventions" (e.g. fall prevention involves all, fall prevention training available as needed). CONCLUSION: Fall prevention strategies/interventions should be an integral component of rehabilitation practices across the lifespan. Participants recommend customizing fall prevention strategies/interventions to their specific needs to guide the structure, content, and delivery of targeted fall prevention programs.
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 | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".