MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407867596 · doi:10.2196/56375

Power-Assist Add-Ons for Older Adult Manual Wheelchair Users: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4407867596 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Oladele Ademola Atoyebi, Andrew Wister, Johanne Mattie, Gloria Gutman, Habib Chaudhury, Carolyn J. Sparrey, O. Yvette Jones, W. Ben Mortenson, Eireann O’Dea, Sogol Haji Hosseini, Jaimie Borisoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintWheelchairProtocol (science)Computer scienceGerontologyPsychologyMedicineWorld Wide WebAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Manual wheelchairs promote independence among older adult users. However, the user's level of disability, strength, and stamina, and the environmental conditions in which the wheelchair is used, may limit the functionality of manual wheelchairs and their impact on independence and active aging. The use of power-assist add-ons may mitigate these limitations and allow an individual to age in place. OBJECTIVE: We propose to conduct a scoping review of scientific and gray literature to examine the use of power-assist add-ons by older adults who use manual wheelchairs, as well as their advantages, limitations, and potential benefits in promoting independence and active aging. METHODS: The review will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist, and we will use the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. The literature search will use a comprehensive approach and will be carried out in two phases: (1) a keyword and Medical Subject Headings search of electronic databases, proceedings, and symposia for relevant titles and abstracts and (2) a search of Google and Google Scholar. Articles will be selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We will include studies of power-assist add-ons for older manual wheelchair users (aged ≥65 years) across any health condition or setting. We will exclude studies not focused on power-assist add-ons or older adults. Data will be synthesized through thematic analysis (attitudes and efficacy) and directed content analysis (limitations and gaps). Results will be summarized narratively and in tables. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and conferences focused on rehabilitation or gerontology. RESULTS: We will synthesize data on power-assist add-ons by compiling a list of devices, analyzing attitudes toward their use, identifying limitations, and highlighting gaps in the literature. We expect to publish the results in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The information obtained through this review could inform future research involving wheelchair producers, suppliers, and prescribers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/56375.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.606
GPT teacher head0.745
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207