Barriers and Facilitators to Physical Activity Participation for Autistic Individuals: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical Activity (PA) offers many physical, social, and mental health benefits to autistic individuals, yet participation rates are low compared to those of neurotypical individuals. This systematic review focused on understanding barriers and facilitators impacting PA participation in autistic individuals. Multiple databases were searched comprehensively for studies conforming to inclusion criteria (i.e., participants included autistic individuals, their parents or caregivers, peer-reviewed in English, qualitative and quantitative methodology) and exclusion criteria (i.e., unpublished thesis, dissertation, or reports, or not published in English). Initial searches yielded 3,505 studies of which 47 met criteria for inclusion. Employing the social-ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), PA barriers were organized into a) intrapersonal (e.g., sensory sensitivities, boredom, self-image, behavioural challenges, or lack of necessary supervisory support), b) interpersonal (e.g., PA partner absence or parents’ time constraints), c) community and institutional (e.g., inadequate equipment or lack of transportation), and d) public policy (e.g., autism -related stigma). PA facilitators were organized into a) intrapersonal (e.g., reward perception, personal interest in activities, or group activities), b) interpersonal (e.g., parents, siblings, or friends being physically active), c) community and institutional (e.g., availability of PA programs or supportive PA equipment), and d) public policy (e.g., accessible and inclusive policies). Findings can guide policy and program design, encourage interventions promoting PA among autistic individuals, and inform further research directions regarding effective PA interventions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".