Do Paediatric Physiotherapists Promote Community-Based Physical Activity for Children and Youth with Disabilities? A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Although the importance of increased physical activity for children with disabilities is widely acknowledged, formal links between rehabilitation practitioners and community physical activity programmes are often lacking. The role of physiotherapists in the promotion of community physical activity is also often unclear. This study set out to describe the beliefs, knowledge, and practices of Canadian physiotherapists related to promoting community-based physical activity for children with disabilities. Method: We used a mixed-methods design: a survey of Canadian physiotherapists and qualitative focus group interviews with physiotherapists. Results: A total of 116 therapists participated in the survey. Of these, 80 (69.0%) considered the promotion of community-based physical activity programmes to be a physiotherapy role, and 89 (76.7%) recommended programmes to families. Therapists with less than 6 years of paediatric experience were less likely to recommend programmes to families (χ24 = 40.46, p < 0.001). Qualitative analysis resulted in three themes: (1) lack of clarity regarding the physiotherapy role, (2) “it’s not easy” – challenges related to community-based physical activity promotion, and (3) one size does not fit all. Conclusions: Various factors shaped physiotherapists’ ability to promote community physical activity, specifically their knowledge, practice setting expectations, and beliefs about their role. Concerted efforts to promote community-based physical activity may increase community capacity to support all children in physical 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 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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".