Stakeholder Perceptions of an Abbreviated Survey to Assess the Accessibility of Community-Based Physical Activity for People With Limited Mobility.

Recruitment was by convenience through one disability organisation's website and social media, so people who use those channels, or who are comfortable with video calls, were more likely to take part. Only 2 fitness professionals took part, so the themes about what facilities and staff think are thin, and the researchers say they could not reach saturation for that group. What the paper says about provider views may not represent facilities generally. Sixteen people in total took part and the focus groups were held online, which may have changed how the discussions went. Participants spanned a wide age range, but the study had no power to examine age differences, so whether the survey works the same way for older and younger adults is unknown. The survey items were taken from two earlier tools (AIMFREE and CHII), which the authors say may have limited what this work could find. This was refinement of an instrument, not validation. Whether the survey gives a reliable or repeatable answer has not been established. Ten people who had signed up did not attend their focus group and 7 never responded to attempts to recontact them.

The authors state that the investigators have no financial or nonfinancial disclosures to make in relation to this project. No funding source is named in the text supplied.

Do not treat this survey as a finished, validated tool. It was refined by 16 people in 4 focus groups, and the authors say its psychometric properties have not been determined, so a rating from it cannot yet be read as a dependable statement about whether a facility is usable.