A systematic review of quality participation context characteristics in community-based physical activity programs for people with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When considering physical activity (PA) participation among individuals with physical disabilities, it is important to explore not just quantity of participation but also the quality of the participation experience. While researchers have identified elements that constitute quality experiences, knowledge is lacking regarding the contextual features that foster these elements and create quality experiences. To explore contextual features that may be associated with a quality participation experience, the current systematic review was conducted to identify studies that evaluated community-based PA programs and assessed or described an outcome or experience related to conceptualizations of quality participation. Five quantitative studies and 33 qualitative studies met inclusion criteria. The quantitative evaluations all assessed constructs related to the quality element of mastery (e.g. self-efficacy). All quantitative studies were group-based and instructor or coach-led. Thus, it was not possible to statistically examine associations between contexts and outcomes because of the low study yield and limited assessments of context features. In contrast, a thematic analysis of qualitative studies identified two contexts as important for fostering quality elements: (1) the group context: participating with peers fosters belongingness and mastery; and (2) the leadership context: knowledgeable instructors promote mastery and autonomy. These findings provide a description of contextual features that may be associated with quality participation experiences. Consideration, description, and evaluation of the context and participation experience is lacking in community-based PA intervention evaluations. To foster quality participation and optimize intervention impact, additional research, especially using quantitative methods, is needed to identify essential context features.Acknowledgments: Canadian Disability Participation Project (SSHRC Grant # 895-2013-1021)
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 | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".