Exploring the Experiences and Perceptions of Adults With Spinal Cord Injury or Disease Aged 50 Years or Older on Participation in Sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sports are physical activities that provide physical, psychological, and social benefits for individuals with spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D). However, most sports research has been completed on individuals with SCI/D who are aged >50 years, even though the majority of people with SCI/D are aged >50 years. Despite substantial evidence supporting sports for older adults not living with a disability, there is currently no research examining the impact of sports for adults with SCI/D aged ≥50 years. Objectives: To explore the perceptions and experiences of individuals with SCI/D aged 50 years or older who participate in sports in the community. Methods: Fifteen adults with SCI/D aged ≥50 years who participated in community-based sports were interviewed. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Conventional content analysis was applied to the data. Results: The overarching theme identified was that sports are fun and adaptable physical activities that have the potential to optimize physical, psychological, and social health in all people with SCI/D, regardless of age. Within this overarching theme, six categories surfaced: (1) importance of participating in sports later in life, (2) prioritizing health over performance, (3) uncertainties about participating in sports later in life, (4) reflections on participating in sports later in life, (5) beliefs on alternative sports involvement, and (6) advice for other aging adults with SCI/D considering sports. Conclusion: Sports are perceived to provide physical, psychological, and social benefits for individuals with SCI/D aged 50 years or older. Findings will inform the development of future adaptive sports programs for older individuals with SCI/D.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".