User perceptions about resources based on the Wheelchair Skills Training Program for training indoor and community wheelchair skills in pediatrics: a descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Wheelchair Skills Training Program (WSTP) is underutilized in pediatrics for training manual wheelchair skills because the voluminous manual lacks pediatric specificity and no materials adapted for pediatric manual wheelchair users (PMWUs) are available. A set of resources (storybook, posters, training workbook) based on the WSTP has previously been developed for training basic indoor wheelchair skills with five to 15-year-old PMWUs. Occupational therapists (OTs) and PMWUs expressed a need for additional resources addressing higher-level skills. Two new sets of resources teaching indoor and community wheelchair skills were developed. OBJECTIVE: Describe OTs' and PMWUs' satisfaction and perceptions regarding usability, relevance and feasibility in pediatrics with the new resources. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted. A focus group and interviews were respectively conducted with a convenience sample of OTs and a criterion sample of PMWUs to document perceptions regarding satisfaction, usability, relevance and feasibility. A deductive approach to data analyses was used following the Framework Method. RESULTS: Six OTs expressed satisfaction regarding both sets of resources feeling more confident using the WSTP (relevance) and perceiving potential time efficiencies when planning training interventions (feasibility). They provided suggestions to improve the usability of the second set. Six PMWUs participated in the interviews, two of which provided feedback on both sets. They were satisfied with the resources recommending them to novice and temporary PMWUs aged from three to 11 years. CONCLUSION: Participants' suggested the resources may contribute to reducing the gap between the evidence supporting the WSTP and its utilization in pediatrics.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".