A review of systematic reviews of barriers and facilitators to physical activity experienced by individuals with developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has confirmed that individuals with disabilities participate in less physical activity than neurotypical individuals; therefore, factors that prevent individuals with disabilities from being active must be investigated. A review of reviews conducted by Martin Ginis et al. (2016) identified several barriers and facilitators to physical activity experienced by individuals with physical disabilities. The researchers suggested that these barriers may be preventing individuals with disabilities from becoming and staying active. To our knowledge, a review of reviews exploring the barriers and facilitators experienced by individuals with disabilities has not been conducted and therefore the purpose of this review of reviews was to identify reviews exploring barriers and facilitators to physical activity among individuals with developmental disabilities. Three systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria for this paper. Information extracted from the reviews included: databases, quality assessments, and barriers and facilitators. It was evident that individuals with developmental disabilities experienced a wide array of factors that influenced physical activity participation. Facilitators included having fun and social support, while barriers included cost and fear of injury. Limitations within the systematic reviews were evident, such as the lack of consistency of terms (e.g., physical activity). Further, researchers merged findings reported by individuals with different disabilities; given the differences between disabilities, this should be avoided. The review of reviews provided a detailed account of research pertaining to physical activity barriers and facilitators experienced by individuals with developmental disabilities, and recommendations that will advance future research in this area.
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 | 0.022 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".