Recommendations for Inclusive Fitness and Recreational Facilities: A Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with a disability encounter a surfeit of barriers to exercising in fitness and recreational facilities. While barriers and facilitators are well documented, few efforts have been made to synthesize recommendations that can facilitate the development of accessible and inclusive facilities. This rapid review addresses this gap by developing recommendations that encompass factors pertinent to physical, cognitive, and social accessibility. The research is reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches of 11 databases related to architecture, health, and sociobehavioral sciences yielded 41 articles that were analyzed using an inductive content analysis. Six recommendations were derived: (1) Increase education and awareness, (2) advocate for accessibility, (3) collaborate with interest groups, (4) implement strategies for inclusion, (5) establish evaluation and improvement plans, and (6) adopt guidelines or best practices. The recommendations encompass guiding principles and strategic advice that can be implemented in facilities to enable diverse people to engage in 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 | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".