Are we really moving people to move? A systematic review of physical activity intervention effectiveness in persons with physical disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Among samples of persons with physical disabilities, the overall and relative effectiveness of theory-based, physical activity (PA)-enhancing intervention strategies is unknown. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the empirical evidence and use of theory in interventions and their effects on PA behaviour in persons with physical disability. Methods: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and AMED databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that tested the effects of a PA intervention in persons with physical disability (spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, osteoarthritis, stroke, fibromyalgia, amputees, and Parkinson's Disease). A total of 22 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted regarding participant demographics, theories and interventions employed, and effects on PA behaviour were synthesized. Results: The majority of interventions were classified as behavioural (n=18) and/or informational (n=15). Social interventions (n=13) were always delivered in conjunction with the former intervention types. No studies evaluated the impact of environmental interventions. More than half of the articles (n=14) explicitly used a theory to guide intervention development. Less than one third of interventions demonstrated significant improvements in PA behaviour from control, all of which were guided by theory (n=6). Conclusion: The literature examining the effects of PA interventions in persons with physical disability is limited. Future research should use theory to guide intervention development and carefully consider which behaviour change strategies are most likely to bring forth the greatest impact on PA behaviour.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".