Perspectives on and use of assistive technology by persons with MS: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assistive technology (AT) provides persons with Multiple Sclerosis (PwMS) ability to engage in daily activities, however acquiring AT can be challenging. Understanding current state of knowledge about perspectives and use of AT by PwMS may support critical thinking about AT acquisition process. The aim of this scoping review was to map what is known about AT use by PwMS, to identify gaps in knowledge to guide future research and practice for AT matching. A scoping review of qualitative research on perspectives and use of AT by PwMS searched four databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychNet, and Engineering Village). Papers included focused on non-institutional settings, addressed participant’s feelings/perceptions/experiences, and were in English. Initial search October 2021, updated 2022 and 2023. Two reviewers conducted screening, review, and extraction, with a third resolving disagreements. Data extraction guided by the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement, categorised AT use by productivity, self-care, and/or leisure occupations. Covidence® was used for extraction. Findings were exported into a spreadsheet to facilitate thematic analysis. Search identified 22 peer-reviewed journals and 11 consumer publications (n = 33). Most common AT was mobility devices. Primary purposes were self-care and leisure. Common use included functional mobility, transportation, personal care, household management, recreation, and socialisation. Perceptions focused on AT need, adjusting to AT, influencing factors, performance and engagement improvements, and seeking acquisition advice. Lack of research on experiences and use of AT beyond mobility equipment, and for engagement of daily activities. Evidence provides some insights for future directions and implications to support AT acquisition for PwMS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".