ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Development and User Testing of an Online Platform to Deliver School-Based Inclusive Physical Education Solutions: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Inclusive physical education (PE) plays a vital role in promoting participation and development among students with different abilities. However, many teachers do not have adequate tools to modify PE activities to meet these diverse needs. In addition, parents are essential partners, as their involvement helps reinforce strategies and provide useful information about their children. While online platforms provide a practical way to deliver such solutions, only a few have been intentionally created to support both teachers and parents in implementing inclusive PE learning. To address this gap, we codeveloped an online platform with adapted PE experts that digitizes an inclusion screening tool and delivers personalized, evidence-based inclusion strategies and resources to teachers and parents. Objective: This study aimed to develop an online platform that provides inclusion strategies for PE teachers and to examine how teachers and parents perceived its usability, acceptability, and overall usefulness using a mixed methods approach. Methods: A mixed methods design was used to evaluate the platform between September 2024 and March 2025. PE teachers (n=8) and parents of children with disabilities (n=8) were recruited through convenience sampling via national social media outreach and completed individual usability testing sessions via Zoom. Usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS), the Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction (QUIS), and task performance metrics. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore user experiences. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, while qualitative data were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis, with findings integrated using joint display analysis. Results: All participants successfully completed the assigned tasks, with a few instances of minor difficulty (14 total errors across 136 task attempts). Participants completed both usability testing and semistructured interviews. Usability and satisfaction scores were high across both groups (SUS: mean 85.63, SD 9.14 for teachers and mean 84.69, SD 12.50 for parents; QUIS: mean 8.52, SD 0.82 for teachers and mean 8.00, SD 1.31 for parents, out of 9). Mixed methods integration showed convergence between positive usability ratings and perceived professional value, while also identifying challenges related to navigation, terminology, learning for first-time users, and mobile interface design. Conclusions: The online platform provides strong usability and high satisfaction among PE teachers and parents. Future work will involve improving implementation and evaluating its impact on students' participation outcomes.
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.