An umbrella review of barriers, facilitators, and interventions for children and youth with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and youth with disabilities have fewer opportunities for structured and unstructured active play than their peers without disabilities. This umbrella review explored how active play is defined and perceived among children and youth with disabilities and their adult facilitators, and identified barriers, facilitators, and interventions influencing active play among children and youth with disabilities. A total of 18 review articles were deemed eligible and synthesized guided by the Social Ecological Model (SEM). Among children and youth with disabilities, active play was defined as fun, spontaneous, and intrinsically motivated, with some seeking intense, meaningful experiences. Reviews also reported that children and youth with disabilities value active play as a means to maintain autonomy and connections but also feel excluded from peers. Adult facilitators appear to recognize the importance of active play and adapted activities to meet individual needs. This review has identified barriers and facilitators within the SEM: (i) individual: psychological factors, body function and structure, (ii) interpersonal: decision-making, social support, and socioeconomic status, (iii) organizational: adapted activity demands, program and staff availability, (iv) community: environment characteristics, activities, attitudes, and resources, and (v) public policy: policy gaps. Instructional and behavioral strategies, assistive technologies, and inclusive playground designs are identified as effective play-based interventions for children and youth with disabilities. Findings highlight the need to incorporate the perceptions and experiences of children and youth with disabilities into how active play is conceptualized and operationalized. Reframing active play in research, policy, and practice can promote equity, social inclusion, and health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".