Adaptive outdoor physical activities for adults with mobility disability: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Outdoor physical activity (PA) contributes to the physical and mental health and well-being of individuals with a mobility impairment. However, individuals are commonly excluded from outdoor PA because of accessibility challenges. No reviews summarizing evidence on factors that facilitate/hinder participation and inclusion of individuals with mobility disabilities in adaptive outdoor PA were identified.. This makes it challenging to establish the key components for implementing inclusive outdoor PA interventions. A scoping review was conducted to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in adaptive outdoor PA and identify suggestions for adaptive outdoor PA design. Methods: A scoping review of qualitative and quantitative studies was conducted based on the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley with modifications by Levac. Barriers and facilitators were categorized into four levels based on a Social Ecological Model (SEM). Suggestions for interventions designed to overcome accessibility issues of outdoor PA were classified based on Universal Design (UD). Results: Thirty-seven factors regarding barriers and facilitators of outdoor adaptive PA were extracted from 19 studies published between 2002 and 2023. Barriers and facilitators were identified primarily in four levels of the SEM, including intrapersonal, social-environmental, physical-environmental, and policy-related. Eleven design suggestions were identified and categorized according to the seven principles of UD. This study identified gaps in the presented barriers and facilitators and the design suggestions of the included studies, mainly at the social and environmental level, such as a lack of innovation in program delivery and logistics. Conclusion: This study identified gaps in knowledge about facilitators and barriers to outdoor adaptive PA and in the design of interventions addressing them. Future research should focus on the strategies addressing these gaps by involving individuals with mobility disability in designing interventions to gain a better insight into their needs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".