Adapted sport and recreation summer camp: youth with physical disabilities, their parents and staff perspectives on psychosocial outcomes and physical activity participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: 1. To examine how an adapted sport and recreation (S&R) camp may facilitate a pathway to regular participation in physical activity (PA). 2. To assess the psychosocial benefits of an adapted S&R program from the perspective of youth with physical disabilities, their parents, and staff. Methods: Youth with physical disabilities participated in an adapted S&R camp designed to introduce adapted S&R programs offered in the community. Photography to stimulate conversation (youth), semi-structured interviews (17 youth, 4 staff) and focus groups were conducted (12 parents/guardians). Inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Youth perspectives resulted in five themes; 1) comfort around others with disabilities, 2) improved social skills, 3) reframing of therapeutic exercises as sports and devices as sports equipment, 4) discovery of abilities, and 5) overcoming stigma. Parent and staff perspectives resulted in three themes pertaining to perceptions of benefits experienced by youth; 1) normalizing participation in sport and PA, 2) motivation to participate in PA and be independent in daily activities, and 3) empowerment and confidence. Three themes related to perceptions on guiding youth through a pathway to PA; 4) recognizing youth’s ability, 5) raising awareness of PA opportunities, and 6) relief from barriers. Conclusions: Findings suggest adapted S&R camps are a possible pathway supporting PA participation for youth with physical disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".