How does playing adapted sports affect quality of life of people with mobility limitations? Results from a mixed-method sequential explanatory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupations, including physical activity, are a strong determinant of health. However, mobility limitations can restrict opportunities to perform these occupations, which may affect quality of life. Some people will turn to adapted sports to meet their need to be involved in occupations. Little is known, however, about how participation in adapted sports affects the quality of life of people with mobility limitations. This study thus aimed to explore the influence of adapted sports on quality of life in adult wheelchair users. METHODS: A mixed-method sequential explanatory design was used, including a quantitative and a qualitative component with a clinical research design. A total of 34 wheelchair users aged 18 to 62, who regularly played adapted sports, completed the Quality of Life Index (/30). Their scores were compared to those obtained by people of similar age without limitations (general population). Ten of the wheelchair users also participated in individual semi-structured interviews exploring their perceptions regarding how sports-related experiences affected their quality of life. RESULTS: The participants were 9 women and 25 men with paraplegia, the majority of whom worked and played an individual adapted sport (athletics, tennis or rugby) at the international or national level. People with mobility limitations who participated in adapted sports had a quality of life comparable to the group without limitations (21.9 ± 3.3 vs 22.3 ± 2.9 respectively), except for poorer family-related quality of life (21.0 ± 5.3 vs 24.1 ± 4.9 respectively). Based on the interviews, participants reported that the positive effect of adapted sports on the quality of life of people with mobility limitations operates mainly through the following: personal factors (behavior-related abilities and health), social participation (in general and through interpersonal relationships), and environmental factors (society's perceptions and support from the environment). Some contextual factors, such as resources and the accessibility of organizations and training facilities, are important and contributed indirectly to quality of life. Negative aspects, such as performance-related stress and injury, also have an effect. CONCLUSIONS: People with mobility limitations playing adapted sports and people without limitations have a similar quality of life. Participation in adapted sports was identified as having positive effects on self-esteem, self-efficacy, sense of belonging, participation in meaningful activities, society's attitude towards people with mobility limitations, and physical well-being. However, participants stated that this involvement, especially at higher levels, had a negative impact on their social life.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".