Exploring the preferences and support needs of persons with sensory disabilities when working with qualified exercise professionals in an exercise context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with sensory disabilities (PWSD) encounter numerous barriers to participation in exercise, exacerbating the rates of physical inactivity and negative health outcomes. Qualified exercise professionals (QEPs) are a potential avenue to reduce such barriers as well as facilitate quality participation (QP; i.e., positive subjective experiences) for PWSD. However, QEPs currently lack sufficient training to effectively support PWSD during exercise. This study, adopting a critical realist approach, sought to gain insight from the lived experiences of PWSD regarding their needs, expectations, and preferences when working with QEPs in a community-based setting. Due to the exclusion of PWSD within mainstream society, limited opportunities currently exist for PWSD to be heard within research and fundamental decision-making processes. As such, we conducted semi-structured interviews with n=4 participants to amplify the voices of PWSD and elucidate their lived experiences in exercise contexts. Informed by the QP Framework, interview transcripts were deductively analyzed. Participants highlighted various themes and strategies related to fostering QP in exercise for PWSD, including a QEP’s adaptability and willingness to learn. Findings highlight various support strategies (e.g., employing diverse communication strategies, providing support that is applicable to the needs and experiences of exercisers, and offering flexibility in exercise plans) for QEPs to facilitate the QP of PWSD in community-based exercise. Insight from this study will inform the creation of a gold-standard training curriculum for QEPs, while facilitating lasting improvements in the accessibility and inclusion of PWSD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".