A scoping review and narrative synthesis on the relationship between anxiety and physical activity in children and adolescents with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and adolescents with disabilities (i.e. a condition that requires ongoing medical attention and combined with societal barriers, limits activities of daily living) may be at greater risk of anxiety. Physical activity has been identified as a strategy to reduce symptoms of anxiety and buffer the severity of anxiety-related symptoms in children and adolescents without disabilities. Evidence on the relationship between anxiety and physical activity in children and adolescents with disabilities is limited. The aim of this review was to summarize and describe literature assessing the relationship between anxiety and physical activity in children and adolescents with disabilities. Five databases were searched from inception to search date. Of the initial 20,063 articles identified, eight met the inclusion criteria to be included in data extraction. The included studies ranged in study design. A small inverse relationship between anxiety and physical activity was described in all eight included studies, indicating higher physical activity levels to be associated with lower anxiety. Future research should use consistent operationalizations and reliable/valid measures of anxiety and physical activity and implement prospective studies to further examine the anxiety-physical activity relationship in children and adolescents with disabilities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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".