The influence of food packaging on independent eating in individuals with hand impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hand function plays a major role in the successful performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), such as eating. There is a lack of data exploring how persons with hand impairment manage food packaging and its impact on eating. METHODS: A convenience sample of 12 inpatients with hand impairments undergoing rehabilitation participated in a qualitative interview where they were asked questions about their experiences with food packaging and independent eating, and asked to open a set of commonly available hospital food packages, first without any tools/aids, and then with tools/aids if they desired to use them. Audio data were transcribed and cross-referenced with video data. Data were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: An overarching theme of "Messiness" along with four major themes were identified: a) Inaccessibility of food packaging; b) Lack of control; c) Eating avoidance; and d) Preferred packaging and strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients with a hand impairment often experience several challenges with independent eating while in hospital as a result of their difficulties with hard to open food packaging. A greater consideration of universal design principles may be relevant for designers to make packaging more accessible.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".