Physical Activity and Quality of Life in People With Visual Impairments: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between physical activity and quality of life (QOL) in people with visual impairments. Methods: Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, SPORTdiscus, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science. Observational studies describing the relationship between physical activity and QOL in adults with visual impairments were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) adapted for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: Overall, 327 studies were identified, and eight met the inclusion criteria. All studies had cross-sectional designs and seven were performed in developed countries. Physical activity was assessed objectively by one study, and five studies used the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire was the most used instrument to measure QOL. Six studies reported a positive relationship between physical activity and QOL domains, as follows: life satisfaction, activity limitation, fair or poor health, physically and mentally unhealthy days, psychological health, and overall QOL. Conclusion: People with visual impairments who are engaged in physical activity are more likely to have better QOL outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".