Exploring the challenges in manual wheelchair operation for new users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This exploratory qualitative study examines the challenges faced by manual wheelchair (MWC) users and their clinicians, with a focus on mobility difficulties in both outdoor and indoor environments, as well as training priorities. METHODS: The study involved semi-structured interviews with 18 clinicians and 25 MWC users from various rehabilitation centres. The interviews, lasting between 30 and 60 minutes, explored specific aspects of MWC use, including mobility challenges, training needs, and psychological factors. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the data revealed key patterns, such as indoor and outdoor navigation issues, had difficulty with basic propulsion skills, and the psychological impact of using an MWC. Participants emphasized the need for comprehensive training programs, addressing safety concerns, and ensuring proper MWC adjustments to improve mobility and comfort. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the importance of psychological support and public awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and promote inclusivity. The findings are crucial for developing a tailored training program for new MWC users, addressing both physical and psychological challenges to enhance their overall quality of life and independence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".