Drivers and barriers to experience in adaptive sporting events: A systematic review and call for further research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Adaptive sports offer active duty members and Veterans with physical or psychological injuries the opportunity to engage in sports with a focus on psychosocial recovery, rehabilitation, and overall well-being. This rapid review examined the experiences of competitors and their families and friends in the Invictus Games, Warrior Games, and winter adaptive sports programs to identify primary facilitators and barriers influencing participation. Methods: Following Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Rapid Reviews (PRISMA-RR) guidelines, the authors reviewed 156 articles, applying self-determination theory as an analytical framework. Results: For competitors, social relatedness (e.g., camaraderie) and competence (e.g., goal attainment, skill mastery) emerged as the primary motivators. For family and friends, witnessing competitor growth and progress was the main motivator. Key barriers for both groups included competitive pressures and limited resources, which sometimes conflicted with the rehabilitative goals of these programs. Discussion: Adaptive sports programming should consider the motivations of individual participants, as well as those of their family and friends, in its design. This review underscores the need for strategies that support sustainable, meaningful participation and informed policy and support practices that respect the rehabilitative ethos of adaptive sports.
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 | 0.022 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".