Environmental barriers and participation restrictions in community-dwelling individuals with spinal cord injury in Jiangsu and Sichuan Provinces of China: Results from a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (1) to describe environmental barriers and participation restrictions experienced by people with spinal cord injury (SCI) from China, (2) to examine associations between lesion characteristics and participation restrictions, considering a mediating role of environmental barriers, (3) to identify those environmental barriers that have the largest influence on participation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. This study is part of the International Spinal Cord Injury Survey (InSCI). SETTING: Community, Jiangsu and Sichuan Province, China. PARTICIPANTS: 1355 persons with SCI. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participation restrictions were measured with items from the Model Disability Survey, Environmental Barriers were measured with the Nottwil Environmental Factors Inventory-Short Form. RESULTS: Participants experienced a median of five (IQR 1-9) environmental barriers and five (IQR 0-9) participation restrictions. Environmental barriers were mainly reported in relation to climate, insufficient resources and accessibility, and participation restrictions mainly occurred in using public transportation, taking care of others, and getting to places. In an adjusted zero-inflated Poisson model, people with more severe injuries reported a greater number of environmental barriers (complete injury: IRR = 1.31, 95%CI = [1.24,1.38]) and participation restrictions (tetraplegia: IRR = 1.15, 95%CI = [1.10,1.21]; complete injury: IRR = 1.25, 95%CI = [1.18,1.31]). Moreover, environmental barriers (IRR = 1.07, 95%CI = [1.06,1.08]) were a significant predictor of participation restrictions and partially mediated the association of lesion completeness with participation restrictions. Barriers related to accessibility of public places (IRR = 1.47, 95%CI = [1.33,1.62]), accessing homes (IRR = 1.32, 95%CI = [1.21,1.44]), long distance transportation (IRR = 1.11, 95%CI = [1.04,1.20]), communication devices (IRR = 1.07, 95%CI = [1.01,1.15]) and state services (IRR = 1.10, 95%CI = [1.02,1.19]) had the greatest negative impact on participation. CONCLUSION: Social participation of people with SCI is seriously restricted in China. Removing environmental barriers will be an important element of programs to address this problem.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".