Outdoor recreation among wheeled mobility users: perceived barriers and facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Participation in outdoor recreation is associated with improvements in mental, emotional, and physical health. Individuals with impairments affecting mobility, such as wheelchair users, face environmental, physical, and social barriers to participation in outdoor recreation. There is limited research on outdoor recreation participation among wheelchair users, especially concerning informal recreational opportunities. Formal programmes that offer access to outdoor recreation are often oversubscribed and also do not enable opportunities to participate more spontaneously. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore the experiences and impact of participation in outdoor recreation activities by wheelchair users, with an emphasis on more informal activities; and (2) to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to participation in outdoor recreation activities. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were the main means of data collection in this interpretive description study; this was supplemented by photographs of activity involvement provided by participants. These data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Fifteen Canadian wheelchair users participated in the study. Three themes emerged following analysis: (1) Into the Woods explores participants' current outdoor recreation experiences, (2) Ain't No Mountain High Enough looks at the barriers and challenges participants face, and (3) Just Around the Riverbend discusses participants' desired changes to enable their further participation. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted participants' current experiences, their perceived barriers, and several ways to enhance outdoor recreation participation among wheelchair users, including: developing new adaptations, creating policies, increasing access to affordable equipment and programmes, and reducing barriers in built and natural environments.Implications for rehabilitationWheelchair users participate in a wide variety of outdoor activities.Wheelchair users experience various barriers and challenges when participating in outdoor recreation.Despite recent improvements, environmental changes are needed to allow wheelchair users to access outdoor recreation.Further development of adaptive equipment is needed in order for wheelchair users to access their desired outdoor recreation activities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".