Wheelchair Physical Activities and Sports for Children and Adolescents: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Increased understanding of the outcomes associated with physical activity and sports has the potential to guide rehabilitation interventions for children and adolescents with disabilities. Aim: To describe research related to group physical activity and sport participation of children and adolescent wheelchair users. Methods: The five-step framework described by Arksey and O’Malley was used to guide the review. Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and SCOPUS) were searched for relevant literature and selected articles were screened and evaluated for inclusion. Basic article information, study objectives, participant information, methods, outcome measures (quantitative), and themes (qualitative) were extracted from the selected articles. Outcome measures were coded using the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Results: Seventeen articles were included in the review. The quantitative research articles evaluated outcomes related to test/training parameters (n = 2), evaluation of tools/models (n = 6), and biomechanical/physiological/participation profiles of athletes/equipment (n = 5). Four qualitative studies explored perceptions and experiences with participation, social supports, and identity development. No articles focused on power wheelchair sport. Conclusion: Additional research on evaluating outcomes associated with group physical activity and sport participation is needed to inform clinical practice and guide future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".