Standing behaviour of non-ambulant children and youth using powered wheelchair standing devices (PWSDs): an interrupted time series pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated “What is the standing behaviour for children and youth with substantial motor impairment due to a neuromotor disorder and does it change over the first three months of use after introducing a powered wheelchair standing device (PWSD) intervention?” As part of a larger interrupted time series with five timepoints, dataloggers measured PWSD seat angle range, frequency and duration for five days, at one-week, one-month and three-months post-PWSD provision with a purposefully-selected sample. Two males and four females aged 7-18 years with diagnoses of spina bifida or cerebral palsy participated; all had minimal experience standing and walking. PWSD seat angle movement relative to horizontal (typical wheelchair seat orientation) was categorised as sitting ≤ 30 degrees (°), weightbearing 31°-60°, and standing > 60°. Descriptive statistics and visual analysis described sample and recordings. Standing behaviours, individualised across participants, varied across timepoints. Total frequency (number of events over 5 days) ranged from 0-13 times in weightbearing and 0-12 times in standing. The two youngest stood more frequently. Duration (minutes) ranged from 0.4-71.5 for weightbearing and 0.4-80.2 for standing; most lasted <3 min. Although PWSDs hold potential for increasing standing behaviour, contextual factors strongly influenced use. Findings reinforce the importance of considering children’s and youth’s participation goals and how those may affect weightbearing or standing behaviour. For those considered non-ambulatory since birth, additional instruction and support is needed to optimise use of PWSD standing functions for independent body position changes as they engage in functional activities and fully integrate PWSD use into daily life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".