Suction cup handholds have low efficacy in laboratory evaluation with typical bathing conditions and wall materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Suction cup handholds are sometimes recommended by Occupational Therapists for bathing transfers when permanent grab bars are not feasible. The efficacy of suction cup handholds on typical bathroom surfaces is unknown. Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy and failure characteristics of two brands of suction cup handholds on six typical bathtub wall surfaces, under environmental and loading conditions associated with bathing. Method: Eighteen suction cup handholds underwent controlled longevity testing under wet and dry conditions in separate sessions. Handhold efficacy was evaluated through (a) visual inspection, (b) manual manipulation, and (c) controlled loading, with days to failure and other failure details as outcome measures. Findings: No handhold-wall sample combinations were effective over the 28 day test period, with at least one handhold on each wall sample failing on day one. Handhold failure was most frequently due to sliding along the wall surface, and occurred most frequently during manual manipulation testing. Conclusion: Handhold efficacy was poor in a controlled experimental environment. These results can inform clinicians of the risks suction cup handholds pose and assist in clinical recommendations against their use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".