Wheelchair users function and satisfaction with modified wheelchair and intermediate wheelchair services in Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheelchair users with poor trunk control and postural abnormalities require additional posture support devices and wheelchair modifications to sit upright. Therefore, this study was conducted to observe the function of wheelchair users in the modified wheelchair and their satisfaction with both the modified wheelchair and intermediate wheelchair service. A descriptive study was conducted, and 14 participants were recruited through consecutive sampling. Post-intervention data were collected from these wheelchair users using the Functioning Every Day with a Wheelchair (FEW) and the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) questionnaires. The data were analyzed through frequency tables and a two-sample t-test. The scores indicated that wheelchair users functioned well in the modified wheelchairs. The range of FEW was 4.8 to 5.6, respectively, with a mean of 5.15 ± 0.227, out of a maximum possible score of 6. The QUEST device sub-score was 4.514 ± 0.2381 and the service sub-score was 4.550 out of a maximum possible score of 5 (SD = 0.3716) indicating that the users were highly satisfied with both the modified wheelchairs and intermediate service provided. Wheelchair users functioned well in the modified wheelchair and expressed a high level of satisfaction with both the modified wheelchair and intermediate wheelchair service provided.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".