Playground Inclusivity for Children With a Disability: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although playgrounds are designed to promote outdoor play, children with disabilities may be unable to engage in these spaces due to intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Previous research has examined inclusive/accessible playground design when developing new playgrounds; however, it is unclear if there is a best-practice tool for evaluating the inclusivity of existing playground structures. OBJECTIVE: A scoping review of both peer-reviewed and grey literature will be employed to explore evaluation tools for playground inclusivity, to enable the participation of children with disabilities. METHODS: The conduct of this study will adhere to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A search for peer-reviewed research studies will be conducted in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and Embase. Grey literature will be examined via a three-step process: (1) a search in the Canadian Health Research Collection Database; (2) a targeted Google search; and (3) reference list searching. Titles, abstracts, keywords, and full texts of identified studies will be independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. A synthesis of included articles will describe the publication and auditing tool details. A summary of the findings will highlight the types of playgrounds measured, types of disability considered, measures of inclusion used, and psychometric properties. RESULTS: Database searches for peer-reviewed articles were completed in December 2021. A total of 1471 unique records were returned after the removal of 559 duplicate records. Full texts of 167 studies meeting eligibility criteria will be reviewed. The peer-reviewed research search will guide the grey literature search. The scoping review is planned for completion in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: A rigorous search of the literature will determine the availability of tools for evaluating existing playground structures for the inclusivity of children with disabilities. The results will inform recommendations on tool applications, and applicable knowledge translation activities. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37312.
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 | 0.092 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.018 |
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".