Perceived Inclusivity in Mobility Aids Use: A Qualitative Study in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite inclusive design focusing on improving environmental accessibility for mobility aid (MA) users, it often fails to ensure true inclusivity due to mismatches between interventions and user perceptions. Therefore, understanding mobility aids users' perceptions of inclusivity is essential for advancing disability studies and design, as it highlights key interventions for more effective practices. This study aims to explore perceived inclusivity in MAs usage and identifies gaps in users' needs, classifying their needs and offering recommendations to meet them. First, the DARE-Inclusive Design Framework was used to develop interview guidelines and interpret results. Next, semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 12 experienced physiotherapists in Iran, and finally, an inductive thematic analysis was used to identify and present themes. Four themes were identified: 1. Perceived Financial Value: Assessing Worth, 2. Objective Enhancements: Optimizing Environments and MAs, 3. Subjective Enhancements: Trustworthiness, Support, and Hope, and 4. Contextual Factors: Interpretations and Representations. The four interconnected themes provide guidelines for inclusivity-oriented interventions, emphasizing financial assessment, high-tech integration, and aesthetic and symbolic considerations in mobility aid design. Physiotherapists can also mediate emotional responses and enhance inclusion during rehabilitation. Additionally, social context and disability etiology impact users' acceptance and use of MAs.
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 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".