ArticleBMC health services research2025
Manual wheelchair training for individuals with chronic and progressive conditions: a critical realist approach to improving practice.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundManual wheelchair (MWC) training is evidenced as a crucial intervention provided to many populations, however gaps in provision occur for individuals commencing wheelchair use in later life due to chronic and progressive conditions. Effective training can improve independence and engagement in meaningful activities and reduce injury risk, caregiver burden and reliance upon healthcare services. However, not all training contexts yield positive outcomes for all MWC users. Using a realist approach, this study describes the development of middle range theories to provide insight into the contexts and mechanisms that underpin successful manual wheelchair training outcomes.
methodA realist approach synthesised evidence from primary studies (n = 47) and stakeholder interviews (n = 17) to explore the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes underlying manual wheelchair training effectiveness. Retroductive analysis was used to build and refine initial programme theories to explain why and under what circumstances a MWC training intervention may be working. To enhance explanatory power, we considered existing rehabilitation and learning theories, leading to the development of middle range theories that offer generalisable causal explanations of how and why MWC training works.
resultsFive Middle-Range Theories (MRTs) were developed. MRT 1: Resources and structured guidance enhances user confidence; MRT 2: The delivery of person-centred, goal-directed training enhances motivation, user acceptance and engagement in MWC training; MRT 3: Training in safe and relevant environments facilitates MWC user confidence and willingness to engage in training. MRT4; Training in environments with positive social attitudes towards wheelchair use enhances psychological safety and acceptance of wheelchair use. MRT 5; Including peers, peer trainers and care partners in MWC training is motivational and supports self-efficacy in wheelchair use. Collectively these MRTs reflect the importance of a well -resourced, user-centred, socially supportive and contextually relevant approach to MWC training. DISCUSSION/IMPLICATIONS: This research highlights the need for system-wide reform to improve MWC training for individuals with chronic and progressive conditions. Key priorities include addressing funding disparities, integrating services across sectors, delivering training in authentic, inclusive environments, providing flexible, person-centred approaches, building workforce capacity and embedding accountability into MWC training.
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.