Efficacy of Manual Wheelchair Skills Training for Improving Skills and Confidence in People With Hereditary Degenerative Disorders: Protocol for a Sequential Multimethods Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mobility impairment and participation restrictions are commonly experienced by individuals with autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS) and myotonic dystrophy type 1 (MD1), 2 disorders that are highly prevalent in the province of Quebec, Canada. People with ARSACS and MD1 experience a progressive decline in mobility, which commonly results in the provision of manual or power wheelchairs. While wheelchairs can facilitate mobility and social participation, their provision alone does not guarantee safe and effective use. Wheelchair skills training has been shown to be effective for improving manual skills and confidence among adult users with various diagnoses, which may enhance self-directed mobility and participation and reduce the risk of chronic and acute injuries. However, manual wheelchair skills training for people with ARSACS and MD1 remains understudied. OBJECTIVE The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of manual wheelchair skills training for safely improving wheelchair performance in people with ARSACS and MD1. The secondary outcomes include exploring the influence of manual wheelchair skills training on skill capacity, use self-efficacy, mobility, and the retention of outcomes 3 months later. We will also qualitatively explore the manual wheelchair training experiences of people with ARSACS and MD1. METHODS This study will use a sequential multimethods design, combining a waitlist randomized controlled trial and qualitative interviews. The participants will include adults who have a diagnosis of ARSACS or MD1 who use a manual wheelchair for mobility. Participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention group will receive 5 manual wheelchair skills training sessions (1-2 sessions/week), while the control group will receive no training. Data will be collected at baseline (T1), after the 4-week intervention (or waiting period for the control group; T2), and 3 months after T2 to assess retention (T3). The primary outcome will be manual wheelchair skills performance. Secondary outcomes will include manual wheelchair skills capacity, self-efficacy, and mobility. Semistructured individual interviews will be conducted to explore participants’ expectations regarding manual wheelchair use, past manual wheelchair experiences, and perceptions of manual wheelchair skills training. Quantitative data will be analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for baseline scores, and qualitative data will be analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS This study received ethical approval (2025-3100) in July 2024. Recruitment started in January 2025. A graduate student, a research assistant, and a research coordinator have been recruited and trained. CONCLUSIONS The results of this randomized waitlist-controlled trial will confirm whether manual wheelchair skills training can improve self-directed mobility and related outcomes for people with ARSACS and MD1. The findings may help guide clinical practice toward manual wheelchair skills training for understanding potential influences on manual wheelchair mobility in people living with neuromuscular disorders. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06596850; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06596850 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/66974
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 | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.009 |
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".