Exploring exercise participation and the usability of the adaptive rower and arm crank ergometer through wheelchair users’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Arm crank ergometry and adaptive rowing are existing exercise options for wheelchairs users, but not commonly available. This study was conducted to explore exercise participation of wheelchair users, as well as the usability of the adaptive rowing ergometer (aROW) and arm crank ergometer (ACE).Methods This mixed-methods study used a concurrent triangulation design. Following completion of both exercise sessions (5 min each), participants (n = 14) with spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D) completed the System Usability Scale (SUS), and a semi-structured interview. Participants were asked about the use of both exercise modalities, and general exercise participation. SUS data were analyzed using a paired sample t-test and qualitative data were analyzed through conventional content analysis.Results Wheelchair users exercised for improved physical and mental health, as well as for functional independence, and community participation; however, lack of accessible equipment was a prominent barrier. Both the aROW and ACE have high usability, but the aROW was perceived as more enjoyable and effective for cardiovascular exercise.Conclusions The implementation of the aROW into community gyms has the potential to help close the existing gap in inclusive equipment and may help people with disabilities to be more fully included in their community and lead healthier lives.Implications for rehabilitationWheelchair users perceive exercise as a meaningful activity that enhances physical health and risk of disease, functional independence, community participation, and overall social and emotional health.The adapted rowing machine was perceived as highly usable and was felt to be more enjoyable and effective for cardiovascular exercise compared to traditional arm crank ergometers.The adaptive rower provides an additional accessible equipment option for wheelchair users to obtain effective cardiovascular exercise.More available equipment may increase community participation and promote inclusion for wheelchair 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".