Overground robotic walker use in the home and community: a six-month prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes following long-term use of overground robotic walkers have not been studied, even though children with mobility impairments are using these devices for extended periods. We aimed to evaluate the impacts of six months of overground robotic walker use in the home and community. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted with a volunteer sample of 171 participants with mobility impairments who privately obtained an overground robotic walker. Participant-initiated overground robotic walker use in the home and community was evaluated over six-months. The primary outcome of functional ability was assessed by parent report using the Gillette Functional Assessment Questionnaire (FAQ). Secondary outcome measures were parent-reported physical activity, positive affect, sleep disturbance, and bowel movement frequency. Questionnaires were sent digitally at baseline (when users received device use training), and then 1-Month, 3-Months and 6-Months later. The device tracked monthly usage, specifically number of steps, minutes of use, average cadence (steps/minute), and the number of times the device was used. RESULTS: Median participant age was 6 years (range 1 to 24), 42.1% were female, 70.8% had a diagnosis of cerebral palsy, and most were not independently ambulatory (97.3% of participants who reported function). Adjusted cumulative link mixed models demonstrated a significant main effect of time for FAQ scores, with increased log odds of a higher FAQ score at each time point (ß=0.86, 95% CI [0.25, 1.46], p = 0.006). The median FAQ score increased from 1 at baseline to 2 at subsequent time points. Adjusted repeated measures linear mixed-effects models demonstrated significant main effects of time for secondary outcomes, with improvements in physical activity scores (ß=0.96, 95% CI [0.21, 1.71], p = 0.012), sleep disturbance scores (ß=-0.82, 95% CI [-1.61, -0.04], p = 0.040), average cadence (steps/minute) (ß=1.86, 95% CI [0.61, 3.11], p = 0.004), and also decreases in the number of times the device was used per month (ß=-0.95, 95% CI [-1.63, -0.26], p = 0.007). Device usage time and total steps per month did not significantly change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Six months of overground robotic walker use resulted in modest, statistically significant improvements in functional ability and secondary outcomes linked to physical inactivity. Device usage time was consistent over time, suggesting feasibility of long-term home and community 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".