Development of a Web-Based Monitoring System for Power Tilt-in-Space Wheelchairs: Formative Evaluation (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> A power tilt-in-space wheelchair meets many clinical purposes, including pressure management, increased postural control, and pain management. However, there is a significant gap between the use of tilt as recommended by clinicians and its actual usage. A Web-based electronic health (eHealth) intervention, including a goal setting, monitoring, reminder, and feedback system of the use of power tilt-in-space wheelchairs was developed. The intervention incorporates behavior change principles to promote optimal use of tilt and to improve clinical postprocurement follow-up. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study aimed to conduct a formative evaluation of the intervention prototype to pinpoint the functionalities needed by end users, namely, power wheelchair users and clinicians. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> On the basis of an evaluation framework for Web-based eHealth interventions, semistructured interviews were conducted with power wheelchair users and clinicians. A content analysis was performed with a mix of emerging and a priori concepts. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> A total of 5 users of power tilt-in-space wheelchairs and 5 clinicians who had experience in the field of mobility aids aged 23 to 55 years were recruited. Participants found the Web interface and the physical components easy to use. They also appreciated the reminder feature that encourages the use of the tilt-in-space and the customization of performance goals. Participants requested improvements to the visual design and learnability of the Web interface, the customization of reminders, feedback about specific tilt parameters, and the bidirectionality of the interaction between the user and the clinician. They thought the current version of the intervention prototype could promote optimal use of the tilt and improve clinical postprocurement follow-up. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> On the basis of the needs identified by power wheelchair users and clinicians regarding the prototype of a power tilt-in-space wheelchair monitoring system, 3 main directions were defined for future development of the intervention. Further research with new wheelchair users, manual tilt-in-space wheelchairs, various age groups, and family caregivers is recommended to continue the formative evaluation of the prototype. </sec>
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".