Perspectives of wheelchair users with chronic spinal cord injury following a walking program using a wearable robotic exoskeleton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To examine the perspectives of wheelchair users with spinal cord injury (WUSCI) regarding their participation in a 16-week walking program using a wearable robotic exoskeleton (WRE); and explore concerns and expectations regarding potential use of this device and intervention in the context of a home or community-based adapted physical activity program.Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a narrative research, 3 weeks post-intervention. Thematic analysis resulted in 6 themes and 21 subthemes.Results Seven men and 4 women aged between 32 and 72 years were interviewed; 8 of them had a complete SCI. After the walking program, WUSCI reported positive psychological aspects (having fun and motivation) and experiencing improvements in physical aspects (strength, endurance, balance and flexibility, blood circulation and intestinal transit). The structural aspects of the WRE device were acceptable in a lab with research personnel (appearance, size, weight, and comfort). Participants had concerns about safety on uneven surfaces, and possibility of falling. They expressed the desire to use the WRE for more life habits than just walking.Conclusion This is the first study in which WUSCI report that the WRE should be implemented in initial rehabilitation. Lack of availability for community use after rehabilitation remains a concern.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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".