Parental perceptions of barriers to physical activity in children with developmental disabilities living in Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents have a strong influence on their child's engagement in physical activities, especially for children with developmental disabilities, as these children are less likely to initiate physical activity. Knowledge is limited regarding parents' perceptions of this phenomenon in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); yet many rehabilitation providers work with children with developmental disabilities and their parents in these contexts. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the barriers perceived by parents of children with developmental disabilities to their children's engagement in physical activity. METHODS: An occupational perspective was used to explore how parents speak about barriers to their child's engagement in physical activity. Interviews were conducted with nine parents in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. FINDINGS: Parent's perceived barriers were categorized into four themes: family priorities, not an option in our environment, need to match the activity to the child's ability, and need for specialized supports. CONCLUSIONS: FINDINGS provide opportunities for future rehabilitation and community programming in LMICs. Implications for Rehabilitation Children living with a developmental disability may engage more in solitary and sedentary pursuits as a result of parents choosing activities that do not present extensive social and physical demands for their child. Therapists can play an important role in providing knowledge to parents of appropriate physical activity and the benefits of physical activity for children with developmental disabilities in order to promote children's participation. In environments where there is limited social support for families, therapists need to consider and be particularly supportive of parental priorities and schedules.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".