Wheelchair service provision education for healthcare professional students, healthcare personnel and educators across low- to high-resourced settings: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aimed to collate and summarize available research literature about wheelchair service provision education available to healthcare professional students, healthcare personnel and educators across low- to high-resourced settings. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological steps for scoping reviews were followed. Included studies were mainly sourced from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Academic Search Complete and ProQuest. Independent title, abstract and full-text screening with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria was performed. All screening and extraction were performed independently by two authors. A thematic approach was used to synthesize results. Data extracted from included studies were charted according to a template that we created. The study quality was also appraised. A total of 25 articles were included (11, 36% from high-income settings) with 12 (48%) observational studies and 13 (52%) experimental studies. The literature addressed three main topics: (1) assessing wheelchair service provision knowledge, (2) implementing training interventions using in-person, online and/or hybrid learning approaches and (3) describing current wheelchair service provision education globally. The most frequently reported training programs used were the Wheelchair Skills Program and the World Health Organization Wheelchair Service Training Package – Basic Level. Limited information has been published about the integration of wheelchair content into the curricula of professional rehabilitation programs. Efforts to build international partnerships, improve the quality and currency of training programs and build resources that can assist educators in the integration of wheelchair-related content into professional rehabilitation programs should be prioritized.Implications for RehabilitationThis is the first review that examined and synthesized the current state of wheelchair service provision education for rehabilitation students and personnel across low- to high-income countries.Findings from this review indicate that there is limited information about the integration of wheelchair-related content into professional rehabilitation programs.Efforts to build international partnerships, standardize wheelchair service provision content and evaluation and integrate training into professional rehabilitation programs worldwide should be prioritized. This is the first review that examined and synthesized the current state of wheelchair service provision education for rehabilitation students and personnel across low- to high-income countries. Findings from this review indicate that there is limited information about the integration of wheelchair-related content into professional rehabilitation programs. Efforts to build international partnerships, standardize wheelchair service provision content and evaluation and integrate training into professional rehabilitation programs worldwide should be prioritized.
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 | 0.016 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".