A scoping review on interventions to promote physical activity among adults with disabilities. Issue 2 (April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Castro, Oscar; Ng, Kwok; Novoradovskaya, Elizaveta; Bosselut, Grégoire; Hassandra, Mary
• Is Part Of: Disability and health journal. Volume 11:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 174
• Page End: 183
• Publication Date: 2018-04
• Subjects: Behavior change techniques taxonomy -- Spinal cord injury -- Multiple sclerosis -- International classification of functioning -- Disability and health; People with disabilities -- Health and hygiene -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Disabled Persons -- Periodicals; Health Education -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 362.4
• DOI: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.10.013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1936-6574

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Despite the strong evidence that physical activity (PA) is a key determinant of health, there is limited knowledge on the content and outcomes of PA promotion interventions among individuals with disabilities. Objective: To conduct a scoping review in order to examine the published literature on PA promotion interventions among adults with disabilities. Methods: A scoping review following the methodological framework provided by Arksey and O'Malley used electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL), reference lists, and journals to locate studies. Inclusion criteria were based on study aim, outcome measures, and a disability definition by the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. The Behavior Change Techniques Taxonomy version 1 and Furlan and collaborators' risk of bias assessment were utilized during the data charting stage. Results: Thirty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies (70%) reported a significant increase in PA behavior immediately following intervention. However, less than half of the studies (46%) examined the maintenance of pre-/post-test differences. The number of identified behavior change techniques was significantly higher for successful PA promotion interventions than for interventions with no effects on PA. Approximately one-third of studies (32%) were rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusions: Although findings support the idea that PA promotion interventions produce positive changes in PA behavior for a variety of disability conditions, risk of bias assessment calls for prudence. There are opportunities for continued development of the area of PA promotion among individuals with disabilities through systematic reviews and meta-analyses.