Inclusive Play Programming Options for Accessible Playgrounds in Pediatric Health Care and Education Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Disabled children benefit from play but often participate in fewer play activities. There has been a recent shift toward building more accessible playgrounds, but little attention has been given to creating programming options to leverage this play infrastructure, diversify its usage, and create more inclusive play experiences.Objectives: This study aimed to understand the accessible playground programming needs and preferences of disabled children and their parents, as well as education and rehabilitation professionals, to produce well-informed recommendations for developing programming options that will diversify and increase accessible playground usage. Methods: Two disabled children, two parents, five rehabilitation professionals, and five education professionals participated in this study. Semi-structured interviews and a draw-and- write activity were used to gain insight into participants’ programming needs, preferences, and recommendations. Results: Study findings suggest that physical design changes and creative programming can be implemented on accessible playgrounds to support education, rehabilitation, and recreational activities to create fun, engaging, and inclusive play environments. Conclusion: Physical design changes informed by playground users can enhance the inclusivity of accessible playgrounds and help support the implementation of accessible playground programming. Developing education and rehabilitation related playground programs can help to improve disabled children’s motivation to achieve education and rehabilitation goals. Keywords: accessibility, ableism, childhood, disability, education, playground, programming, rehabilitation
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".