Stakeholder perspectives of pediatric powered wheelchair standing devices: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To explore and describe the experiences and perspectives of various stakeholders regarding the use of powered wheelchair standing devices (PWSDs). Method The purposive sample included: children aged 6 to 18 years who used a PWSD ( n =8; diagnoses: cerebral palsy, spinal muscular atrophy, spina bifida, spinal cord injury), parents of children 18 years of age or younger who used a PWSD ( n =12), rehabilitation professionals working with children who used a PWSD ( n =12), and professionals working at companies manufacturing PWSDs ( n =3). Data were gathered via face‐to‐face interviews conducted either in person or via Zoom ® and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results Three main themes emerged in the data: (1) ‘Stand‐on‐demand’ revealed how participants perceived PWSDs as allowing children to stand whenever and wherever they wanted, thereby increasing participation; (2) ‘It’s more than weight‐bearing’ uncovered participants’ perceptions of psychological and physical benefits from PWSD use; and (3) ‘Ecosystems influencing PWSD acquisition and use’ revealed child‐ and non‐child‐related factors perceived as influencing children’s procurement and use of a PWSD. Interpretation Use of a PWSD was perceived as providing a unique opportunity for children to stand whenever and wherever they desired. Findings suggest the possible transdiagnostic application of PWSDs. What this paper adds The ability to stand when desired was unique to powered wheelchair standing device (PWSD) use. Participants perceived numerous psychological and physical benefits from PWSD use. Child‐ and non‐child‐related factors influenced procurement and use of a PWSD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".