The experiences of participating in winter among youths with a physical disability compared with their typically developing peers

Abstract

There is a strong need to remove physical and environmental barriers to facilitate the participation and inclusion of youth with disabilities in winter.

Five Approaches to Qualitative Comparison Groups in Health Research: A Scoping Review

“…Of the studies that explained their comparison group, they had different analytical approaches. Twelve studies reported coding all transcripts from both groups before comparing and contrasting similarities and differences between the groups (Askew, 2009; Carrard & Kruseman, 2016; Fields et al, 2017; Hesketh, Hinkley, & Campbell, 2012; Kyriacou, Easter, & Tchanturia, 2009; Lehmann, 1998; Lim, Gonzalez, Wang-Letzkus, Kimlin, & Ashing-Giwa, 2013; Lindsay, Fellin, Cruickshank, McPherson, & Maxwell, 2016; Lindsay et al, 2015; Makela, Birch, Friedman, & Marra, 2009; Moola, 2012; Whitley, 2016). It was interesting to note that one study mixed the order of the youth without disabilities and autism groups for the first half of the interviews and coded the remainder in the order they occurred before exploring the similarities and differences between the two groups (Dickie et al, 2009).…”

“…Having comparison groups within a qualitative design can benefit researcher’s understanding of lived experiences and processes, while also highlighting how phenomena vary between groups (Lindsay, McAdam, & Mahenderin, 2017; Lindsay et al, 2015; Ritchie et al, 2014). For example, within health research, a comparison group could support researchers to explore similarities and differences between those who have a particular condition and those who do not (Lindsay, 2018; Lindsay et al, 2015). Applying comparison groups in qualitative research could also help to incorporate varying perspectives from people who have different social positions (e.g., patient, clinician, and caregiver perspectives).…”

“…Qualitative research using comparison groups often report that it is a strength of their design (e.g., Dickie et al, 2009; Jaye & Tilyard, 2002; Lindsay, 2018; Lindsay et al, 2017; Lindsay et al, 2015). For example, Sublett et al (2017) notes that comparing patients’ and health care professional’s perspectives “highlight gaps in understanding and challenge assumptions of patient preferences, allowing for better alignment of health care delivery to patient needs” (Sublette, Smith, George, McCaffery, & Douglas, 2017, p. 1309).…”

Environments favorable to healthy lifestyles: A systematic review of initiatives in Canada

“…They can, in fact, be linked to the secondary issues (variables studied), which identified the EFHL components for each theme and sphere. Physical activity involved 9 variables: youth program, 34 , 67 , 68 accessibility to facilities and equipment, 63 , 69 , 70 , 71 active transportation, 58 , 72 community influence, 73 discourse in favor of sport, 74 environmental influences, 75 perceptions, facilitators, and barriers, 59 , 76 season or weather, 77 and walkability. 52 , 78 Nutrition involved 5 variables: perceptions, 79 local food exposure and accessibility, 80 , 81 food services, 28 product offerings, 29 and the impact of a low socioeconomic status.…”

“…Neighborhood environment included 8 variables: community organization and health, 83 , 84 living sites, 85 physical activity, 86 quality of neighborhood, 61 , 87 recreation, culture, and sport, 54 , 60 refugees integration, 88 school travel, 89 , 90 and seasonal influence. 77 , 91 …”