Results of wheelchair skills training among the disabled persons with lower limb loss of vascular origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wheelchair skills training is an essential part of rehabilitation of the disabled persons with lower limb amputation (LLA) due to peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, nowadays this issue is poorly addressed in our country, there are no standardized technologies.
 AIM: Investigation of dynamics of the extent of wheelchair usage among disabled persons with LLA due to PAD during adjustment to the wheelchair using the Wheelchair Skills Program (WSP, Canada).
 MATERIALS AND METHODS: Altogether, 350 patients with lower limb stump [unilateral tibial stump ― 116 (33.1%), hip stump ― 223 (63.7%), bilateral tibial stumps ― 6 (1.7%), hip stump ― 5 (1.4%)] were examined in clinical settings at the Federal State Budgetary Institution Novokuznetsk Scientific and Practical Centre for Medical and Social Expertise and Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation. Male ― 268 (76.6%), female ― 82 (23.4%). Mean age 63.10.52 years. Cause of LLA: obliterative PAD (lower limb atherosclerotic arterial disease) ― 226 (64.6%), type 2 diabetes mellitus ― 124 (35.4%). WSP effectiveness was assessed in 227 disabled persons. Wheelchair skills retention in 1.1 (0.591.87) years was assessed in 48 persons, 25 persons have undergone training second time.
 RESULTS: It was found that 86% of the disabled persons with LLA needed the wheelchair skills training. Upon the completion of the course the level of individual wheelchair skills was increased in all participants. This contributed to an increase in their activities and participation, which was indirectly evidenced by 1.8 fold increase in the proportion of those using the wheelchair outdoors by the time of second hospitalization.
 CONCLUSION: The program provides an individual approach to training, based on the results of a study of the initial level of proficiency in wheelchair skills, the wishes of the user himself, his physical, somatic and psychological condition. Thanks to this, novice users were able to master basic skills, and relatively experienced ones ― more complex, and thereby increase their level of safe use of the wheelchair, as well as the degree of independence and everyday activity, which can indirectly be evidenced by a significant increase in the share of wheelchair users outside the house.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".