Domains of wheelchair users’ socio-emotional experiences: Design insights from a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical accessibility is not the only concern for wheelchair users (WUs); they also face barriers to social presence, such as challenges in social engagement and negative stereotypes. Identifying key domains in the literature that impact their social and emotional experiences is essential to addressing these issues. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review sought to explore the key domains of WUs' socio-emotional experiences, as a foundation for providing design-oriented insights to enhance their social presence. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases, along with a manual search of three relevant journals. Articles in English, based on original empirical studies that focused on the socio-emotional experiences of adult WUs (>18), were included. RESULTS: Of the 48 articles included, most were from Canada (n = 11), Sweden (n = 9), the U.S. (n = 7), and the U.K. (n = 6), with limited studies from other countries. Among the six domains explored, Independence & Autonomy (26 %) was the most frequently reported, while Self-Identity & Body Image (9 %) and Social Stigma & Discrimination (5 %) were the least. Three interconnected themes emerged to guide design insights: Theme I - Foundations: Autonomy & Control, Theme II - Connections: Social Participation & Support, and Theme III - Reflection: Self- & Social-Identity. CONCLUSION: While independence and agency are key concerns, little research has focused on perceptual issues like self- and social-identity, often highlighted in the media. This area can be refined by recognizing the crucial role of design in aesthetically shaping WUs' social representation in public settings.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it