Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38233836›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Priority populations' experiences of the accessibility and inclusion of recreation centres: a qualitative study.

Elise Rivera, Cynthia Smith, Kylie D Hesketh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elise RiveraInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences (SENS), Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. e.rivera@deakin.edu.au.
Cynthia SmithInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences (SENS), Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Kylie D HeskethInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences (SENS), Deakin University, Locked Bag 20001, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.

Funding

Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship 105929
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the health benefits of physical activity are well documented, certain priority populations are often disproportionately insufficiently active and at higher risk of poor health. Recreation centres have the potential to provide accessible and supportive environments for physical activity for all. However, little is known about priority populations' experiences of these venues and their views of how accessibility and inclusion can be optimised. This study aimed to gain in-depth insights of recreation centre experiences and potential strategies for improving inclusion and accessibility amongst priority populations (women, older adults, ethnic minorities, persons living with disabilities/additional needs, individuals identifying as LGBTQIA+, low socio-economic position).

methodsThis qualitative study (2021-2022) involved 18 semi-structured individual interviews with adult priority population users of recreation centres (50% 65 + years, 61.2% female) in one Melbourne municipality. Participants were asked to discuss their positive and negative experiences at the centres and to identify strategies for enhancing accessibility and inclusion. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was performed for data analysis.

resultsWhile many participants had positive views of the facilities and programs at the centres, as they met their needs, they also had suggestions for improving accessibility and inclusion. Similarly, most participants were happy with the communications, felt included, and perceived the culture positively. Those who did not feel included at the centres offered many potential strategies for changing the culture, modifying communications (e.g., signage), and establishing partnerships for better access and inclusion.

conclusionsThe present study adds to essential knowledge concerning priority populations' experiences of recreation centres. For recreation facilities that were generally perceived as having positive inclusion and accessibility, the findings nonetheless highlighted suggestions for further enhancement. These strategies may be useful more broadly for improving accessibility and inclusion, thereby promoting physical activity and ultimately health for all.

Indexed as

ExercisePersons with DisabilitiesAgedEmotionsFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchRecreationActive recreationAdultsDisadvantaged populationsFitness centreLeisure centrePhysical activityUnderserved populations

Identifiers

PMID38233836
PMCPMC10792860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.