Exploring the support needs, preferences, and expectations of persons with disabilities when working with qualified exercise professionals in an exercise context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Persons living with disabilities (PWDs) encounter numerous barriers to participation in exercise. Qualified exercise professionals (QEPs) are a potential source to improve the quality of experiences in exercise and long-term participation in exercise for PWDs. However, many QEPs do not possess the competencies needed to assist PWDs while exercising. Adopting critical realism, this study aimed to gain insight from the lived experiences of PWDs regarding their needs, preferences, and expectations when working with QEPs in community exercise settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 participants to amplify the voices of PWDs and elucidate their lived experiences in exercise contexts. Interview transcripts were inductively analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: . Our findings indicate PWDs need to feel appropriately challenged, prefer individualized exercise programs, and expect to collaborate with their QEP using open communication. CONCLUSIONS: Insight from this study should inform future training for QEPs, while facilitating lasting improvements to the inclusion of PWDs in community exercise settings.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".