ArticleBMC public health2024
Priority populations' experiences of the accessibility and inclusion of recreation centres: a qualitative study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parental/Guardian-Child Physical Activity in Relation to Racial/Ethnic Inequities in the Americas: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Systematic Review of Community-Based Exercise Interventions for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A mixed-methods investigation for effects of built environments on older people's social interaction in care homes.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.