Clinical stakeholders’ perspective for the integration of an immersive wheelchair simulator as a clinical tool for powered wheelchair training
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate clinical stakeholders' acceptance of an immersive wheelchair simulator as a potential powered wheelchair skills training tool. Focus groups, conducted in four rehabilitation centers, were used to obtain a rich understanding of participants' experiences and beliefs. Then, a cross-sectional survey of the simulator acceptability for clinical practice was created. Twenty-three rehabilitation therapists and clinical program directors participated in the focus groups and thirty-three responded to the survey. Participants generally expressed that use of the simulator would be complementary to training in an actual powered wheelchair, and that it could be useful for challenging situations in rehabilitation centers (e.g. anxious clients; when there is uncertainty around their potential to drive a powered wheelchair; tasks that cannot be assessed in a real-life environment). They also provided suggestions to improve the simulator (e.g. more feedback during tasks; possibility of adjusting control settings such as speed and sensitivity; possibility of adding varied control interfaces). Feedback received from key stakeholders clearly indicated that the wheelchair simulator would be complementary to training provided in a real context of use. However, some important limitations must be addressed to improve the simulator and promote its adoption by clinical programs, therapists and clients.
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.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it