Factors impacting participation in sports for children with limb absence: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with limb absence benefit from participating in sports. While barriers and facilitators affecting sport participation are well documented for adults, they have not been explored for children with limb absence. PURPOSE: To identify the perceived factors impacting participation in sports according to children with limb absence and their parents. METHODS: This study uses a descriptive qualitative study design. Nineteen participants, consisting of children and their parents, were recruited from an outpatient hospital clinic for semi-structured interviews. The 11 interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were then coded and analyzed using the DEPICT model. The thematic analysis was guided by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. RESULTS: Analysis of our participant interviews identified six themes as having an influence on sport participation: "functionality of prosthesis", "plan in advance", "know what I can do" (understanding capabilities), "it's like every stroke, 2 million questions" (stigma and the social environment), "love for the game" (love for sport), and "these things are an investment" (the investment involved). CONCLUSIONS: The findings have the potential to inform the development and implementation of strategies to increase levels of participation in sports among children with limb absence. Information from this study may help to deepen the rehabilitation team's understanding of factors that impact engagement in sports among children with limb absence. Implications for Rehabilitation Children with limb absence present with unique barriers and facilitators to participating in sports, thus, what may be a facilitator or barrier for one child may not for another. Strategies to increase a child's participation in sports should consider both person and environmental factors. Rehabilitation professionals can play a crucial role in educating both families and the community on living and coping with a limb difference, services and community supports available, and the use of specialized prosthesis and attachments for sport participation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".