Facilitators and barriers to participation in physical activities in children and adolescents living with cerebral palsy: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This scoping review aimed to synthetize personal and environmental facilitators and barriers to participation in physical activities among youths living with cerebral palsy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in five databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, WEB OF SCIENCE. The studies were selected by two independent researchers based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. A semi-quantitative evaluation assessed the consistency of results for a given variable. Variables displaying consistent associations were classified based on the Physical Activity for people with Disability Model. RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 10 795 articles, of which 57 were included. The main barriers to physical activity identified were motor impairments (30 studies), older age (15 studies), pain (6 studies), attendance in regular school (6 studies), and communication problems (4 studies). Barriers such as upper limb impairment and visual deficit were less frequently studied, while cognitive attributes, adapted physical environments and positive attitude, and family support were identified as facilitators. CONCLUSION: Personal and environmental factors influencing physical activities behaviors among youths living with cerebral palsy are multiple and complex since they interact with each other. Rehabilitation interventions need to adopt a person-based approach to address barriers and reinforce facilitators.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION:Physical activity participation among youths with cerebral palsy is a multidimensional phenomenon, dependent on different personal and environmental factors.Gross motor impairments, communication problems, and pain were the most common personal factors limiting physical activity participation.Environmental factors consistently associated with physical activity participation were school settings, physical environment such as transportation, and social and family support and attitude.Rehabilitation interventions to promote an active lifestyle should consider not only personal factors but their interaction with the child's environment.
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".