ADA Compliance and Accessibility of Fitness Facilities in Western Wisconsin

Johnson, Marquell; Stoelzle, BS Hannah Y.; Finco, BS Kristi L.; Foss, BS Sadie E.; Carstens, BS Katie

doi:10.1310/sci1804-340

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 102 included papers, only 26 [ 11 , 26 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ] included AwPD. Of these 26 papers, almost 60% could be categorised as scientific literature, and the remaining grey literature were conference papers, guidelines, magazines, and newspaper articles.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to, and Facilitators of, Exercising in Fitness Centres among Adults with and without Physical Disabilities: A Scoping Review

Nikolajsen

Sandal

Juhl

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fitness centres are an obvious arena for performing physical activity for the general population but representation of adults with physical disabilities (AwPD) is lacking. To increase possibilities for AwPD to exercise in fitness centres together with adults without physical disabilities (AwoPD), the aim of this study was to identify, synthesise, and compare barriers to, and facilitators of, exercising in fitness centres for each group. A scoping review was conducted and data extraction of the barriers and facilitators was performed independently by two researchers on six categories of contextual factors based on the framework of Di Blasi: (1) The fitness centre setting; (2) The fitness centre user characteristics; (3) The fitness instructor/staff characteristics; (4) The fitness centre user–instructor/management relationship; and (5) The fitness/exercise characteristics. An extra category, (6) Other relationships, was added. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews was used for reporting. Of the 102 included papers, only 26 (25%) of the papers were on AwPD, which focused mainly on physical barriers (category 1: inaccessible settings). In contrast, the remaining 76 papers involving AwoPD focused primarily on facilitators (category 2: motivational factors and exercising effects). In categories 3–6, the two groups had similar results, as both groups preferred skilled instructors, a welcoming and comfortable fitness centre environment, an ability to exercise at their preferred type and level, and good social connections. Since most data were based on AwoPD, more studies on actual experiences from AwPD are needed, to reveal the facilitators/motivational factors for fitness centre use.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to, and Facilitators of, Exercising in Fitness Centres among Adults with and without Physical Disabilities: A Scoping Review

Nikolajsen

Sandal

Juhl

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with this scenario, fewer rural patients may perceive secondary support services to be as important as overcoming barriers associated with the travel costs and healthcare fees that would be associated with their use. Notably, rural areas are rapidly aging, but rural residents are less likely to have ADA-friendly homes and paratransit services [ 38 , 39 ]. This can make multiple treatment visits or multiple visits to access supportive care services challenging and potentially dangerous.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of Structural Urbanism: Urban–Rural Differences in Cancer Patients’ Use and Perceived Importance of Supportive Care Services from a 2017–2018 Midwestern Survey

Lewis‐Thames

Fank

Gates

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Structural inequities, in part, undergird urban–rural differences in cancer care. The current study aims to understand the potential consequences of structural inequities on rural and urban cancer patients’ access to and perceived importance of supportive cancer care resources. Methods: We used data collected from November 2017 to May 2018 from a larger cross-sectional needs assessment about patients’ support needs, use of services, and perceptions at a Midwestern United States cancer center. Oncology patients received a study packet during their outpatient clinic visit, and interested patients consented and completed the questionnaires. Results: Among the sample of 326 patients, 27% of the sample was rural. In adjusted logistic regression models, rural patients were less likely to report using any secondary support services (15% vs. 27%; OR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.22, 0.85], p = 0.02) and less likely than urban counterparts to perceive secondary support services as very important (51% vs. 64%; OR = 0.57, 95%CI [0.33, 0.94], p = 0.03). Conclusion: Structural inequities likely have implications on the reduced access to and importance of supportive care services observed for rural cancer patients. To eliminate persistent urban–rural disparities in cancer care, rural residents must have programs and policies that address cancer care and structural inequities.

show abstract

“…Many studies have been conducted on YouTube videos, but few have analyzed the accessibility of YouTube videos for people with disabilities. Most prior work concerns the accessibility of physical fitness centers for people who are disabled, not the accessibility of online fitness content [20][21][22]. Thus, to the authors' best knowledge, no studies have analyzed this matter.…”

Section: Prior Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Accessibility of YouTube Fitness Videos for Individuals Who Are Disabled Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Application of a Text Analytics Approach

Kadakia¹,

Stratton²,

Wu³

et al. 2022

JMIR Form Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background People with disabilities face barriers to in-person physical activity (PA), including a lack of adaptive equipment and knowledgeable instructors. Given this and the increased need for digital resources due to widespread COVID-19 lockdowns, it is necessary to assess the accessibility of digital fitness resources for people with disabilities. To investigate whether YouTube fitness content creators have made videos accessible to people with disabilities would be informative about access to PA during COVID-19 and could also provide insight into the feasibility of individuals who are disabled relying on YouTube for PA in a post–COVID-19 world. Objective This study aims to ascertain if disability-friendly PA videos on YouTube are accessible through searching general fitness terms and whether a change in the availability of accessible fitness resources for people with disabilities occurred on YouTube between before and during the COVID-19 pandemic on “Hospital/Medical Institutions,” “Individual(s),” and “Other(s)” channels. Secondary aims are to investigate if different categories of YouTube channels produce more accessible fitness content and highlight any disparities in disability-friendly PA content on YouTube. Methods A cross-sectional text analysis of exercise-related YouTube videos was conducted. The authors used Python (version 3.0) to access the YouTube database via its data application programming interface. Terms pertaining to PA that were searched on YouTube were at-home exercise, exercise at home, exercise no equipment, home exercise, home-based exercise, no equipment workout, and workout no equipment. Various elements (eg, view count and content generation) of the videos published between January 1 and June 30, 2019 (n=700), were compared to the elements of videos published between January 1 and June 30, 2020 (n=700). To capture a broad idea of disability-friendly videos on YouTube, videos were labeled “accessible” if they were found in the first 100 video results and if their title, description, or tags contained the following terms: para, paralympic, adaptive, adapted, disabled, disability, differently abled, disability-friendly, wheelchair accessible, and inclusive. Each video and channel were categorized as “Hospitals/Medical Institutions,” “Individuals,” or “Other(s).” Results The analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in viewership of fitness content on YouTube (P=.001) and in fitness content generated by Hospitals/Medical Institutions (P=.004). Accessible terms applicable to people with disabilities had minimal appearances in 2019 (21 videos) and 2020 (19 videos). None of the top viewed fitness videos that populated on YouTube from 2019 or 2020 were accessible. Conclusions The proportion of accessible disability-friendly videos remains diminutive relative to the prevalence of disability in the general population, revealing that disability-friendly videos are seldom findable on YouTube. Thus, the need for disability-friendly fitness content to be easily searched and found remains urgent if access to digital fitness resources is to improve.

show abstract

ADA Compliance and Accessibility of Fitness Facilities in Western Wisconsin

Cited by 20 publications

References 8 publications

Barriers to, and Facilitators of, Exercising in Fitness Centres among Adults with and without Physical Disabilities: A Scoping Review

Barriers to, and Facilitators of, Exercising in Fitness Centres among Adults with and without Physical Disabilities: A Scoping Review

Consequences of Structural Urbanism: Urban–Rural Differences in Cancer Patients’ Use and Perceived Importance of Supportive Care Services from a 2017–2018 Midwestern Survey

The Accessibility of YouTube Fitness Videos for Individuals Who Are Disabled Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Application of a Text Analytics Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About