ReviewDevelopmental medicine and child neurology2026
The F-words for childhood development in community-based physical activity programmes for children with physical disabilities: A scoping review.
Review in Developmental medicine and child neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo identify intervention ingredients used to address the F-words for childhood development in community-based physical activity programmes for children with physical disabilities, the programme outcomes, and the strength of available evidence.
methodA scoping review was conducted guided by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Electronic database and hand searches of international literature identified studies that evaluated community-based physical activity programmes for children with a physical disability with impaired gross motor skills (e.g. sitting, walking) ranging from mild limitations in speed, balance, and coordination to severe impairment requiring the use of a wheelchair for mobility. Intervention ingredients were mapped to the six F-words: functioning, fitness, friends, family, fun, and future. Primary study outcomes were tallied and themed. Evidence strength was assessed using the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.
resultsTwenty-four primary research articles were included. Most studies addressed the concept of functioning, fitness, fun, and friends, and few studies addressed family and future. Thirty common intervention ingredients were identified to deliver the F-words. Eight key outcome areas were identified. Most studies were level IV evidence and possessed a serious level of bias.
interpretationDespite identifying numerous intervention ingredients mapped to the F-words, the overall evidence base remains weak. Strengthening the quality and scope of research is essential to ensure the F-words framework is applied inclusively for physical activities across diverse populations of children with physical disabilities in community contexts.
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.