The dynamics of affective experiences with wheelchair use during rehabilitation: A qualitative study through physiotherapists' perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interaction between users and mobility aids, including emotional attachment and functional expectations, influences their perceptions and decisions on acceptance and continued use during rehabilitation. Tracking interactions during rehabilitation helps identify key intervention points, leading to effective therapeutic relationships and user-centered mobility aid designs. This study aims to track the dynamics of affective experiences (DAE) of wheelchair users (WUs) during a planned rehabilitation timeframe and recommend how to manage these dynamics. To this end, initially, the product experience framework was applied for the development of interview guidelines and analysis. Next, adopting a qualitative approach, semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 12 experienced physiotherapists were conducted in Iran. Transcripts were then analyzed using a thematic analysis framework to identify themes. A total of three themes have been identified which include: 1) Coping in Using the Wheelchair, 2) Reluctant Acceptance of the Wheelchair: Adjusting to the New Normal, and 3) Approaching Recovery: Challenges in Over-reliance. Additionally, two diagrams illustrating the dynamics of the affective experience of WUs and its influencing factors during rehabilitation have been provided. This study shows that the affective experience of WUs is not static and changes through various stages of rehabilitation. This dynamic is influenced by factors of emotional and functional importance, both of which often grow after initial resistance but follow varied patterns. However, emotional attachment can sometimes lead to over-reliance even after recovery, posing challenges in the rehabilitation. Physiotherapists can help balance this attachment, influencing users' affective experiences with their wheelchairs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".