Bridging Needs and Expectations of Individuals With Physical Disabilities and Community Services Stakeholders for the Cocreation of an Adapted Physical Activity Platform in Virtual Reality: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity supports the health and well-being of individuals with physical disabilities. Despite the significance of engaging in physical activity, barriers faced by individuals with disabilities, such as limited access to adapted facilities and lack of transportation, can restrict their participation. Community organizations play a role in addressing these challenges, but virtual reality (VR) also offers a way to diversify adapted activities. In some situations, VR can help overcome the resource limitations of organizations by providing accessible, engaging, and highly personalized options for physical activity. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the needs and expectations of individuals with physical disabilities and their interventionists for the use of a VR physical activity platform in a community organization. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted using semistructured interviews with individuals with physical disabilities and their interventionists, all associated with a nonprofit organization promoting physical activity among people with disabilities. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Results: In total, 15 participants, including 8 people with physical disabilities and 7 interventionists, were interviewed. Through this discussion, we gained insights into the everyday challenges faced by individuals with disabilities and identified priorities for community organizations. Subsequently, we discussed key considerations for using VR, including adapting activities, the possibility of fostering a more positive perception of physical activity, and harnessing the potential of VR to improve access to physical activity. We also discussed the importance of supporting personal goals and creating inclusive experiences while recognizing challenges such as technical difficulties and connectivity issues. Conclusions: By exploring the needs and expectations regarding VR technology from individuals with physical disabilities and their interventionists, this study provided essential insights for integrating immersive and nonimmersive VR into community organizations, informing next steps for the design of adapted physical activities in VR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".