Young para-athletes display more hedonic well-being than people with disabilities not taking part in competitive sports: insights from a multi-country survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hedonic well-being relates to how individuals experience and rate their lives. People with disabilities due to their pathology may more frequently suffer from anxiety and depressive disorders than their able-bodied counterparts. Sports participation is an essential way to cope with disability. On the other hand, compared with their able-bodied peers, para-athletes undergo a unique series of stressors. Little is known in terms of hedonic well-being in this specific population. We present the results of a multi-country survey of self-perceived hedonic well-being by para-athletes of different sports disciplines and a control group (disabled individuals not playing competitive sports), using the "Psychological General Well-Being Index" (PGWBI). We included 1,208 participants, aged 17.39 years, 58.4% male, 41.6% female, and 70.3% para-athletes. Para-athletes exhibited higher well-being than disabled people, for all domains of the PGWBI scale. The nature of disability/impairment was significant, with those with acquired disability reporting lower well-being. Those taking part in wheelchair basketball, para-athletics, and para-swimming competitions had a higher likelihood of reporting well-being, whereas those engaged in wheelchair rugby exhibited lower well-being compared with controls. This large-scale investigation can enable a better understanding of the self-perceived hedonic well-being of disabled people.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".