Evaluations of virtual exercise programmes for adults with mobility limitations: a scoping review protocol incorporating an equity lens to inform the development of strategies to optimise participation of under-represented groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For individuals with mobility limitations, virtual exercise programmes can address the challenges of in-person participation in community exercise programmes. A synthesis of studies of virtual exercise programmes targeting mobility limitations provided outside of conventional rehabilitation services and strategies used to optimise equitable access and inclusivity in these programmes is lacking. We aim to characterise evaluations of virtual exercise programmes for adults with mobility limitations, and the nature of and extent to which equity, diversity and inclusion considerations are integrated in the research process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review following a six-stage methodological framework, including a consultation exercise, is proposed. A comprehensive strategy will be used to search Medline, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL and Scopus to identify peer-reviewed studies evaluating virtual exercise programmes for adults with mobility limitations living in the community. Three trained reviewers will select studies independently. Data (eg, study methodology, programme structure and content, participant characteristics) will be extracted using a standardised form, and collated and summarised using quantitative and qualitative methods. The PROGRESS-Plus and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health frameworks will be used to classify participant characteristics and study outcomes, respectively. During the consultation exercise, key knowledge users, including exercise participants, programme providers and coordinators, and members of community organisations for persons living with disabilities and under-represented groups, will be asked to provide insights regarding the applicability of review findings. A directed content analysis of data from the consultation exercise will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research ethics board at the University of Toronto approved the consultation exercise. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Findings will enhance understanding of current research evaluating virtual exercise programmes and inform future research and strategies for promoting equitable access and outcomes for individuals with mobility limitations. REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X5JMA.
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 | 0.225 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.008 |
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".