The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical Activity and Social Isolation among Adults with Physical Disabilities Living in Canada and The Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among people with physical disabilities might differ between countries due to differences in implemented measures and infection rates. This study aimed to understand the impact of the pandemic on physical activity (PA) and social isolation among adults with physical disabilities in Canada and the Netherlands, and examine associations between PA and social isolation. Methods: Secondary data from two studies were used: the Canadian COVID-19 Disability Survey (n = 353) and the Dutch Rehabilitation, Sports and Active lifestyle (ReSpAct) 2.0 study (n = 445). Self-reported PA was measured using IPAQ-SF and Adapted-SQUASH. Social isolation was measured using the PROMIS Social Isolation. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed. Results: Canadian participants spent on average 163 min (Median = 0; IQR = 120) on moderate-to-vigorous PA per week and Dutch participants 934 min (Median = 600; IQR = 1125). In Canada, 64% reported to have become less physically active since the pandemic compared to 37% of Dutch participants. In both samples, no clinically relevant associations were found between PA and social isolation. Conclusions: The findings emphasize the negative impact of the pandemic on PA and social isolation in adults with physical disabilities in Canada and the Netherlands. Future research is needed to better understand if and how PA can be used to reduce social isolation in people with disabilities. This study illustrates how cross-country collaborations and exchange provide opportunities to inspire and learn from initiatives and programs in other countries and may help to improve PA support among people with disabilities during and after the pandemic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".