POWERED WHEELCHAIR STANDING DEVICES – IMPACT ON PARTICIPATION FOR BOYS WITH DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Powered wheelchair standing devices (PWSDs), providing both mobility and supported standing, have potential to improve participation and independence for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and may be considered an alternative to a seated power wheelchair. In this clinician-led descriptive study, I explored everyday life participation of 9 boys with DMD aged 9-17 years provided with a PWSD. \nRegular occupational therapy clinical care served as the backdrop for data collection and methods over a 24-month period. I used the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) as an intervention. Key collaborative approaches promoted daily life use of supported standing in PWSDs: regular refining and re-defining of COPM goals; promoting and establishing standing in routines and activities; consultation and advocacy at home and school. \nAfter 24 months of PWSD use, I gathered event-contingent data over 7 days with a smartphone app to examine frequency of standing in PWSDs and identify the activities in which the boys engaged. The PWSD is an example of an intervention for boys with DMD who are motivated by physical and social engagement and independence for self-care. Enablers included positive attitudinal/social environments with sustained supports from caregivers and therapists. Barriers included pain during supported standing and lack of physical environment accessibility. \nSupply of PWSDs in the late ambulant period of DMD was optimal. Successful and sustained use of the supported standing feature requires OT interventions, in particular, time and resources for collaboration with parents and schools. Findings will inform anticipatory planning, prescription, timing of supply, and the complexities of implementation and evaluation of this assistive technology device. Implications for funding bodies and for future research are outlined. \n
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".