A systematic review of review articles addressing factors related to physical activity participation among children and adults with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dozens of published papers cite factors related to leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) participation among people with physical disabilities. Unfortunately, there has been little effort to synthesise this literature in a manner that is accessible and useful to the sectors (e.g., health care, recreation) responsible for LTPA promotion in disability populations. In this systematic review, over 200 factors were extracted from 22 review articles addressing barriers and facilitators to LTPA in children and adults with physical disabilities. Factors were grouped according to common themes, classified into five levels of a social ecological model, and coded according to whether they could be affected by the health-care and/or recreation sectors. Findings are discussed with regard to key factors to target in LTPA-enhancing interventions, relevant theories and models in which to frame interventions, the levels at which the interventions can be implemented, and intervention priorities. The synthesis provides a blueprint and a catalyst for researchers and practitioners to shift focus from conducting studies that merely describe LTPA barriers and facilitators, to developing and delivering strategies to increase LTPA among persons with physical disabilities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".