Promoting Physical Activity Among Children and Adolescents With Disabilities: The Translation of Policy to Practice Internationally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity among children and adolescents with disabilities (CAWD) is a global public health issue. Policy efforts to promote physical activity (PA) among CAWD have increased. This study summarizes the international policy trend for promoting PA among CAWD, with behavioral and policy insights specific to CAWD from country/regional indicators from the Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance Matrix on Physical Activity for Children and Adolescents to determine policy translation into practice. METHODS: International and national PA policy documents on CAWD were assessed. Data from the Global Matrix Para Report Cards on the behavioral and government indicators from 14 countries or regions (grouped by human development index) were reviewed and compared. RESULTS: Policy instruments began promoting PA for CAWD in 1989 via the Convention on the Rights of the Child. International policy has been advocating PA specifically for CAWD recently. In 2020, the World Health Organization published specific PA guidelines for CAWD. Data from the 14 Para Report Car found 14 grades on the average behavioral indicator and 12 on the government indicator. A gap between the average behavioral indicator (D-) and the government indicator (C+) was found in the Para Report Card data. CONCLUSIONS: Although international policies are consistent in their attention to the needs of CAWD, national/regional policies vary. Coverage ranges from nonexistent to embedded in broader inclusion concepts. A gap in policies to promote PA of CAWD is prevalent and is more prominent in countries or regions with a lower human development index ranking.
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 | 0.034 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".