Effects of Real-Time Pressure Map Feedback on Confidence in Pressure Management in Wheelchair Users With Spinal Cord Injury: Pilot Intervention Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wheelchair users with a spinal cord injury (SCI) are at a high risk for developing pressure injuries (PIs). Performing weight shifts is a primary method of pressure management for PI prevention; however, individuals with SCI may lack confidence in their abilities to perform adequate pressure relief due to their lack of sensation. Real-time seat interface pressure mapping feedback may provide partial substitution for sensory feedback such that an individual's confidence is improved. OBJECTIVE: We aim to examine how confidence for pressure management by wheelchair users with SCI was impacted by providing access to real-time, on-demand seat interface pressure mapping feedback. METHODS: Adults with SCI (N=23) completed self-efficacy questions addressing confidence around 4 factors related to performing weight shifts in this longitudinal, repeated-measures study. We evaluated the impact of providing standard PI prevention education and access to live pressure map feedback on confidence levels for performing weight shifts. RESULTS: Access to live pressure map feedback while learning how to perform weight shifts resulted in significantly higher confidence about moving far enough to relieve pressure at high-risk areas. Confidence for adhering to the recommended weight shift frequency and duration was not significantly impacted by in-clinic education or use of pressure map feedback. Confidence that performing weight shifts reduces PI risk increased most following education, with slight additional increase when pressure map feedback was added. CONCLUSIONS: Access to live pressure mapping feedback improves confidence about performing weight shifts that relieve pressure when provided in the clinical setting and demonstrates potential for the same in the home. This preliminary exploration of a smartphone-based pressure mapping intervention highlights the value of access to continuous pressure mapping feedback to improve awareness and confidence for managing pressure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987243; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03987243.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".