Barriers and Facilitators to Initial and Ongoing Implementation of Community-Based Exercise Programs for Persons with Physical Disabilities: Qualitative Perspectives of Program Providers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based exercise programs (CBEPs) designed for persons with physical disabilities can promote participation in physical activity (PA). Despite their importance, few CBEPs for persons with physical disabilities exist in Canada. Understanding successful CBEP implementation may provide exercise providers with a framework to support the development, implementation, and long-term sustainability of CBEPs. The purpose of this study was to explore CBEP providers’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators surrounding the initial and ongoing implementation of CBEPs using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0 (CFIR 2.0). Fifteen eligible CBEPs were identified, of which nine program providers expressed interest in participating in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were subject to inductive thematic analysis, and codes were deductively mapped onto domains of the CFIR 2.0. Barriers and facilitators were organized into six overarching themes and eighteen subthemes. Across themes, barriers and facilitators were present through initial and ongoing implementation and spanned all five domains of the CFIR 2.0, suggesting factors at all levels influence CBEP implementation. Ultimately, the barriers and facilitators to CBEP implementation may act as a roadmap to support the creation and sustainability of new and existing CBEPs, thereby increasing the number of programs that offer PA opportunities for persons with physical disabilities.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it