The Misconceptions of Physical Activity Maintenance Among Adults With Physical Disabilities: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose and Objectives : The purpose of this scoping review was to explore existing literature examining physical activity maintenance among adults with physical disabilities. Specific objectives were (a) to understand the current body of literature and types of research studies that have purposefully explored physical activity maintenance or examined maintenance by conducting follow-ups 6 or more months postintervention and (b) to report on the factors that support or prevent physical activity maintenance among adults with physical disabilities. Methods : A scoping review was conducted. Studies were first categorized by how they defined physical activity maintenance. Variables associated with physical activity maintenance were extracted within each category. Five databases (MEDLINE, SportDiscus, Psych Info, AMED, and Web of Science) were searched using identified key terms. The qualitative data were synthesized using a thematic approach. Qualitative and quantitative results within the included articles were examined to identify common patterns within the results. Results : Sixteen articles were included in this scoping review. Of these, 6 were categorized as maintenance studies and reported self-efficacy, action planning, and motivation as supporting physical activity maintenance. Ten studies were categorized as follow-up studies and reported routine and commitment to the intervention as supporting physical activity maintenance. Conclusion : Misunderstandings remain in this field of research. Definitions of maintenance are inconsistent, and constructs examined are not unique to maintenance. Moving forward, future research should include an applied definition of physical activity maintenance and have theoretical grounding using maintenance theories and methods identified as relevant for evaluating maintenance.
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 | 0.069 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".