Sedentary behavior and children with physical disabilities: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to summarize research regarding sedentary behavior in children with physical disabilities related to (1) sedentary behavior patterns, (2) measurement of sedentary behavior, and (3) current state of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using established scoping review methodology. Articles were eligible for inclusion if participants were 0-18 years of age, had physical disabilities, and the focus of the research was on sedentary behavior patterns, measurement of sedentary behavior or evaluation of interventions to decrease sedentary behavior. RESULTS: = 3) conducted to evaluate interventions for decreasing sedentary behavior were included; existing evidence does not support effectiveness of strategies to reduce sedentary behavior in children with physical disabilities. Few studies addressed sedentary behavior in younger children or children who use wheelchairs. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of interventions to decrease sedentary behavior in children with physical disabilities is needed. Future research should also address measurement of physical activity with children who use wheelchairs as their primary method of mobility. Implications for rehabilitationIntervention strategies to decrease sedentary behavior are increasingly discussed; however, additional research is needed to evaluate effectiveness.Strategies for addressing sedentary behavior should expand to include consideration of lengths of sedentary bouts and breaks from sedentary behavior, and not just focus on total sedentary time.Research in this area has focused on ambulatory children; a greater research emphasis on children who are non-ambulatory is warranted.Agreement and consistent use of accelerometry protocols is recommended to advance this body of 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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".