MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386593041 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2023.2256380

Accessible exercise for wheelchair users: comparing the usability of two adapted exercise machines

2023· article· en· W4386593041 on OpenAlexaff
Elisabeth Anderson, Abigail Baker, Jaimie Borisoff, Johanne Mattie, Bonita Sawatzky, Carolyn J. Sparrey, W. Ben Mortenson

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCraig H. Neilsen Foundation
KeywordsWheelchairUsabilityManual wheelchairPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHuman–computer interactionComputer sciencePhysical therapyPsychologyMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Exercise is an important occupation for wheelchair users. Limited access to adapted aerobic exercise equipment in the community and lack of knowledge on how to exercise are barriers to exercise participation among wheelchair users. To address these barriers, the adapted rower (aROW) and adapted skier (aSKI) exercise machines and educational materials were created.Purpose 1) To compare wheelchair users’ perspectives of the effectiveness and usability of the aROW and aSKI. 2) To explore perceptions of educational materials to support use of the machines.Materials and Methods A sequential, mixed-methods study design was used. Six wheelchair users trialled the machines, and completed an interview and two usability questionnaires. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic and conventional content analysis. Usability scores of both machines were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.Results Data show high usability of the aROW and aSKI. More set up challenges were reported for the aROW than the aSKI. Participants perceived both machines provided effective cardiovascular workouts, and each met their exercise goals differently. Participants preferred the instructional videos over instructional sheets and provided suggestions for improving both. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test showed no statistically significant difference in usability between the aROW and aSKI.Conclusion Implementing the aROW and aSKI in the community may address some equity issues that wheelchair users face by providing more aerobic exercise options. Results will inform educational material revisions to support use of the machines.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe adapted rower (aROW) and adapted skier (aSKI) were perceived as highly usable, suggesting provision of more adapted aerobic exercise options, like the aROW and aSKI, may address some exercise-related equity issues wheelchair users experience.Wheelchair users may consider multiple factors when choosing adapted exercise equipment, highlighting the importance of providing multiple options for adapted aerobic exercise equipment to facilitate agency in choice of exercise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207