ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2023
Expert consensus for a digital peer-led approach to improving physical activity among individuals with spinal cord injury who use manual wheelchairs.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Active living lifestyles for manual wheelchair users (ALLWheel) program to enhance leisure time physical activity: a pilot randomized control trial.Spinal cord · 2025Trial
- Designing a Self-Guided Digital Intervention for Self-Management of Shoulder Pain in People Living With Spinal Cord Injury: Tutorial on Using a Person-Based Approach.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Peer support as pressure ulcer prevention strategy in special school learners with paraplegia.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2024Article
- Feasibility, Usability, and Safety of ParaGym, an Intelligent Mobile Exercise App for Individuals With Paraplegia: Protocol for a Pilot Block-Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextActive Living Lifestyles for manual wheelchair users (ALLWheel) uses a digital peer-led approach to incorporate two behavior change theories to address a critical need for leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) programs for individuals with spinal cord injury (iSCI).
objectiveThe objective of this study was to obtain expert opinion and consensus for the ALLWheel program.
designMixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) were used to gather expert opinion and consensus for the ALLWheel program using an action research approach.
settingRehabilitation center.
participantsExperts in SCI and LTPA included iSCI who used manual wheelchairs, healthcare professionals, and community collaborators. PROCEDURES: Two, 90-minute focus groups were conducted and transcribed verbatim, analyzed thematically, and the results were used to create a Delphi survey. Delphi surveys were completed online using consecutive rounds until ≥70% consensus per item was attained. Cumulative percent concordances were calculated to determine consensus.
resultsTwelve experts in SCI and LTPA participated in focus groups. Four themes were generated: Need for LTPA programs; Important considerations; Perceptions about peer-coaches; and Feelings about smartphones, which were used to generate the Delphi survey. Consensus on the ALLWheel program was attained in two rounds.
conclusionsExperts established a need for fun and personalized community-based LTPA programs. Ensuring that healthcare professionals would be involved in the ALLWheel program alleviated safety concerns, and experts agreed there were benefits of peers delivering the program. Experts agreed that the ALLWheel program targeted important psychological factors (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.