Wheelchair prescription after spinal cord injury: satisfaction and functional mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Globally, rehabilitation services aim to address activity limitations and participation restrictions for those withmobility issues. Therefore, the prescription of wheelchairs is integral to the work of rehabilitation professionals, particularlyoccupational therapists. The dearth of research in South Africa necessitated this study into wheelchair prescription,satisfaction with and the functional mobility in the prescribed wheelchairs for individuals with spinal cord injury.Method: A cross sectional, descriptive, non-experimental research design was used to collect data from 40 participantsusing a demographic questionnaire, the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) 2.0and Wheelchair Users Functional Assessment (WUFA). The data were analysed descriptively to determine the satisfactionwith and the functional mobility in the wheelchair as well as the association between these variables. The influence ofinvolvement in the prescription of the wheelchair, the type of wheelchair prescribed on satisfaction and the functionalmobility in the wheelchair were also considered.Results: Of the 40 participants, 34 (85%) were prescribed rigid-frame wheelchairs and only six participants (15%) receivedfolding frame wheelchairs. Over 87.98% of the participants had a high level of satisfaction with their prescribed wheelchairand 84.82% reported being functionally mobile in their wheelchairs. High involvement in the prescription of the wheelchairresulted in higher scores for both satisfaction and functional mobility.Conclusion: This study concluded that a rigid-frame wheelchair facilitated functional mobility in individuals with SCIin the South African context. The greater the involvement of participants in the wheelchair prescription process, thehigher their satisfaction with their wheelchair and functional mobility, indicating the importance of client-centerednessin wheelchair prescription in occupational therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".