Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Physical Activity Among Individuals with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity among individuals with disabilities. Methods and Materials: A qualitative phenomenological approach was employed to capture the experiences of individuals with disabilities. Participants were recruited from visitors of York Rehab Clinic in Canada, meeting the criteria of being aged 18 and above, having a physical disability, and being capable of providing informed consent. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 23 participants until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis, supported by NVivo software, to identify key themes and subthemes. Findings: The study identified several barriers and facilitators to physical activity. Physical barriers included accessibility issues, transportation challenges, environmental barriers, and health-related limitations. Social barriers encompassed lack of social support, attitudinal barriers, lack of awareness, dependency on caregivers, and negative past experiences. Facilitators included supportive environments, social encouragement, professional guidance, motivational factors, adapted programs, and technological aids. Psychological factors such as self-efficacy, mental health benefits, perceived benefits, fear of injury, motivation fluctuations, and coping strategies also played significant roles in influencing physical activity participation. Conclusion: The findings underscore the multifaceted nature of barriers and facilitators to physical activity among individuals with disabilities. Addressing physical accessibility, fostering supportive social environments, providing professional guidance, and leveraging technological aids are crucial for promoting physical activity participation. Future research should incorporate larger, diverse samples and explore tailored strategies for different types of disabilities. Practical recommendations include improving facility accessibility, enhancing social support, and integrating technology to facilitate physical activity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".