MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417476724 · doi:10.1080/10790268.2025.2593079

Impact of a photovoice intervention on fall-related psychological variables, participation levels and quality of life in chronic spinal cord injury

2025· article· en· W4417476724 on OpenAlexaff
James D. Sessford, Anita Kaiser, Katherine Chan, Mohammad Alavinia, Oda Al-anizi, Hardeep Singh, Sarah Munce, Kristin E. Musselman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Cord Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalSpinal Cord Injury OntarioUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersCraig H. Neilsen Foundation
KeywordsPhotovoiceSpinal cord injuryIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)AmbulatoryParaplegiaPsychological interventionTetraplegia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Falling is common after spinal cord injury (SCI). Falls can cause a fear of falling and reduced participation in activities. Interventions that target falls self-efficacy may change fall-related behaviors, such as reduced participation. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to investigate the impact of a photovoice intervention on falls self-efficacy in individuals with chronic SCI. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of photovoice on participation, quality of life, fear of falling and falls. METHODS: Convergent mixed methods study with 34 adults with chronic SCI; 17 used a wheelchair (WC) and 17 ambulated (AM). The six-week, virtual photovoice intervention focused on fall prevention and consisted of photo-assignments, individual interviews and group meetings facilitated by a peer mentor. The primary measures were questionnaires of falls self-efficacy and falling concern. The secondary measures included questionnaires of participation, quality of life and fear of falling, and number of falls. Quantitative data were compared over time for WC and AM groups separately with a repeated measures ANOVA or Friedman's test. Semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis were used to collect and analyze qualitative data. A joint display merged quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Scores did not change over time for both groups (p≥0.109) with the exception of participation. The AM group's participation scores were significantly improved three months post-intervention (p≤0.028). Overall, divergence between quantitative and qualitative data was observed, with some participants describing improvements in self-efficacy and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04864262.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Cord MedicineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207