Perception of autonomy among people who use wheeled mobility assistive devices: dependence on environment and contextual factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the perceived autonomy of people using wheeled mobility assistive devices (WMADs) in five community-based environments. To evaluate how personal, environmental, and assistive device-related factors impact the perceived autonomy of WMAD users. METHOD: A study-specific questionnaire was used to evaluate perceived satisfaction of WMAD users with their autonomy in five environments: the Home Environment, Buildings Outside of the Home Environment, Outdoor Built Environment, Outdoor Natural Environment, and Transportation. For each environment, participants rated their satisfaction with autonomy about 15 personal, environmental, and assistive device-related factors. Qualitative perceptions were also collected with open-ended questions. RESULTS: < 0.05). In all environments, the top factor respondents were most satisfied with was WMAD ease of use. Their least satisfaction was when negotiating stairs, curbs, or obstacles in the Home, Buildings Outside of the Home, and the Outdoor Built Environments. In the Outdoor Natural Environment, the most dissatisfaction was with manoeuvring on different terrains. Responses to open-ended questions supported the quantitative findings and highlighted the effects of various factors on autonomy (e.g., subject-environment familiarity). CONCLUSIONS: WMAD users reported the greatest restriction to their autonomy in outdoor environments. Different context-specific factors were found to impact autonomy in different environments. Understanding how environment-specific contextual factors contribute to overall perception of autonomy may inform the development of future strategies to overcome identified limitations and challenges.Implications for RehabilitationWheeled mobility assistive device (WMAD) users experienced the highest autonomy in their home environments, specifically, when having access to home modification services.WMAD users had the lowest autonomy in the outdoor natural environment, with manoeuvrability on different terrains being the main predictor of the overall satisfaction with autonomy in this environment.Environment-specific contextual factors with significant impacts on perceived autonomy were identified that can inform the design and development of future WMADs (e.g., distance travelled, safety).
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".