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 MA 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, using a qualitative descriptive research, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 12 experienced physiotherapists in Iran. Finally, an inductive thematic analysis was applied to identify and present the emerging 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 MA 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".