Participant experiences and perceptions of physical activity-enhancing interventions for people with physical impairments and mobility limitations: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disabled people face multiple personal, environmental and social barriers that interfere with leading a physically active lifestyle. Thus, there is an urgent need for behaviour change interventions to increase physical activity (PA) by specifically addressing the situations of disabled people, and barriers to participation. This original meta-synthesis of qualitative research was undertaken to explore participants' experiences and perceptions of PA-enhancing interventions for adults with physical impairments resulting in mobility limitations. Published articles were identified through a rigorous systematic search. Based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 10 articles were included for review. Following a critical appraisal of the articles, methods of thematic synthesis were drawn upon to generate overarching concepts through interpretation and conceptual synthesis. Seven interrelated concepts were constructed representing both components and outcomes of the interventions. These were (i) Diversity of interventions; (ii) Importance of communication; (iii) Need for social support; (iv) Behavioural strategies; (v) Gaining knowledge; (vi) Re-framing thoughts about exercise and the self and (vii) Health and well-being. The results revealed that a combination of informational, social and behavioural interventions is perceived as crucial for PA initiation and maintenance. Furthermore, key elements of effective intervention design and implications for policies and practices to increase PA participation are proposed.
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 | 0.037 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".