A systematic scoping review: Resources targeting the training and education of health and recreation practitioners to support physical activity among people with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with physical disabilities (PWPD) do not engage in adequate leisure-time physical activity (LTPA). Support from health and recreation practitioners can increase LTPA among PWPD. Unfortunately, many practitioners have poor attitudes toward LTPA for PWPD, and lack confidence and motivation to support LTPA for PWPD. Poor attitudes, confidence and motivation among practitioners may be the result of a lack of training and education necessary to provide practitioners with the basic knowledge, skills and resources required to support LTPA among PWPD. Little is known about existing LTPA information and training resources targeting health and recreation professionals, and there has been no known systematic effort to collect current resources. This study served to identify educational tools and resources that target the training of practitioners working with PWPD in LTPA settings. Searches of academic and grey literature, online materials and expert consultation were performed using systematic scoping review methodologies. Identified resources were then assessed for technical quality. Several resources (N=46) of high technical quality from academic, government, non-government and professional organizations were identified. Most resources indicated a target PWPD population (78%) but few clearly specified a practitioner group (37%). The review provides a listing of existing resources while acting as a foundation for further research regarding the analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation of optimally effective tools targeting professionals to encourage LTPA among PWPD. Further research is necessary to identify and inform optimally designed resources that enhance practitioners' attitudes, confidence, motivation toward LTPA for PWPD through improved knowledge and skills.
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 | 0.042 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".