Facilitators of and barriers to adaptive video gaming participation among individuals with physical disabilities
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
Participation in leisure and recreational activities has been associated with improvements in quality of life and social relationships for individuals with physical disabilities. The purpose of this study was to determine the most frequent facilitators and barriers that individuals with physical disabilities experience, both when starting with adaptive video gaming and when maintaining participation. A self-administered survey was used to collect data from individuals who currently participate in adaptive gaming and included three sections: (1) Demographic Section, (2) Gamer Habits Section, and (3) Facilitators and Barriers to Adaptive Gaming Section. A total of 256 participants met inclusion criteria and completed the study survey. Family, friends, rehabilitation staff members, social media/YouTube, and peer support were found to play a role in facilitating the initiation of adaptive gaming participation. Common facilitators of adaptive gaming were fun/entertainment, stress relief/relaxation, and prior involvement in video gaming. Barriers to adaptive gaming participation were cost of equipment and difficulties with gameplay. Older age and greater severity of hand impairment were associated with experiencing a higher number of barriers (p < 0.01). Improving funding resources, game accessibility, and access to professional assistance for adaptive gaming may help overcome some of the commonly reported barriers in this study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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