Current Experiences and Future Expectations for Physical Activity Participation: Perspectives of Young People with Physical Disabilities and Their Rehabilitation Clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Researchers investigated current physical activity experiences of youth with physical disabilities and expectations for continued participation as they transition to adult services.Method: Youth (n = 6) and clinicians (n = 7) from a rehabilitation center participated in two separate focus groups. Researchers used inductive thematic analysis.Results: Four themes emerged among youth: “good for your health”; “motivation is key”; “social opportunities in safe environments”; “wanting to stay active.” Among clinicians, five themes arose: “added therapeutic benefits with participation”; “development as individuals through physical activity”; “inclusive and supportive environments”; “parents as advocates”; “transitioning to adult services is important.”Conclusions: Themes across focus groups were comparable. Participants expressed positive experiences for youth attending a dedicated adapted fitness center. To facilitate current and future physical activity in adulthood for youth with physical disabilities in integrated settings, the following are warranted: accessible buildings, trained staff, adapted equipment, and positive attitudes toward disability.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".