-
Regular physical activity (PA) has numerous advantages in improving the physical and mental health of children and adolescents[1]. However, the PA status quo for children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities (ID) is dismal. Children and adolescents with ID frequently exhibit sedentary behaviors because their physical, sensory, and/or cognitive impairments make it difficult to participate in sports and games with their peers[2]. They have higher rates of mental illness, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems than peers with typical development (TD).
PA interventions can reduce the risk of chronic diseases in children and adolescents while improving their lifestyles. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that interventions designed for children and adolescents with TD are ineffective in improving the PA of children and adolescents with ID[3], possibly because they encounter more barriers to PA than children and adolescents with TD.
To ensure the effectiveness of PA interventions, researchers must develop interventions based on a broad understanding of PA and its barriers. Many studies have investigated the factors that prevent children and adolescents with ID from participating in PA. However, recent reviews have revealed that the existing information is limited and uncertain[4], implying that more research into the factors influencing engagement in physical exercise is required[2]. In China, many children and adolescents have ID, but research on the barriers to PA in this population is scarce. Therefore, we aimed to explore the barriers to PA among Chinese children and adolescents with ID.
This study employed a cross-sectional design. Sixty children and adolescents aged 8−18 years with mild to moderate ID were recruited from special education schools in Beijing and Qinhuangdao, China, and assessed following parental consent. The intelligence level of the participants was assessed by two researchers who had received training in psychological measurements to correctly perform the Combined Raven’s Test based on the PsyKey Psychometric System according to the prescribed procedures. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) mild to moderate ID rating, that is, IQ score between 55 and 89; (2) ability to understand the test content and follow simple instructions; and (3) no evident physical disabilities and ability to perform regular PA. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Capital University of Physical Education and Sports (Ethical Approval No.: 2020A13). The study protocol was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and informed consent was obtained from all participants and their parents.
The variables included age, height, body weight, body mass index (BMI), IQ score, PA time, and barriers to PA. The ActiGraphGT3X+ accelerometer (ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL) was used to measure the participants’ PA. Actilife version 6.13.3 was used to download and analyze the data. Raw data were captured at a sampling interval of 1 s based on the PA intensity cut-off points developed by Zhu et al.[5]. Validated intensity cut-off points were 100–2,800 counts per minute (cpm) for light PA (LPA), 2,800–4,000 cpm for moderate PA (MPA), and ≥4,000 cpm for vigorous PA (VPA). Since barriers to PA may vary across different timeslots and places, PA data were reported as average daily, weekday, weekend, in-school, and out-of-school data after processing.
Barriers to participants’ PA were reported by their parents, who completed the “Questionnaire on Barriers to Physical Activity of Children and Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities.” This questionnaire uses a Likert 5-point scale to evaluate all questions, which are divided into five parts. With 2−4 questions in each part and 5 options in each question, i.e., “totally disagree−totally agree,” representing 1−5 points, respectively. The score for each part was the average score for all questions within this part. Questions in the five parts were all reverse assigned; the higher the score, the worse the performance in this part. The questionnaire was developed by our team based on previous studies. The specific formation process, reliability, and validity of the test results have been presented elsewhere.
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were expressed in mean ± standard deviation (SD). Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to determine barriers to PA among children and adolescents with ID, with PA as dependent variables and the scores of the five questionnaire parts as independent variables controlling for age and BMI. The significance level was set at P < 0.05.
The final valid sample consisted of 42 children and adolescents with mild to moderate ID (mean age: 11.45 ± 2.82 years, 66.67% boys) (Table 1).
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics (mean ± SD)
Variables Total (n = 42) Boys (n = 28) Girls (n = 14) Age (year) 11.45 ± 2.82 11.64 ± 2.88 11.07 ± 2.76 Height (cm) 145.87 ± 16.54 149.23 ± 18.05a 139.14 ± 10.64 Weight (kg) 46.49 ± 21.96 50.87 ± 23.48 37.73 ± 15.86 BMI (kg/m2) 20.89 ± 6.45 21.85 ± 6.68 18.97 ± 5.71 IQ score (point) 64.90 ± 13.70 67.04 ± 14.35 60.64 ± 11.61 PA (min/day) Average daily LPA 137.34 ± 41.20 142.53 ± 45.54 126.95 ± 29.52 MPA 26.83 ± 12.05 28.07 ± 11.92 24.36 ± 12.37 VPA 28.54 ± 13.22 29.72 ± 14.72 26.18 ± 9.58 MVPA 55.37 ± 21.95 57.79 ± 22.80 50.54 ± 20.04 TPA 192.71 ± 51.72 200.32 ± 53.78 177.49 ± 45.35 Weekday LPA 136.56 ± 40.22 141.84 ± 44.59 125.99 ± 28.15 MPA 27.58 ± 13.32 29.02 ± 13.24 24.69 ± 13.49 VPA 30.23 ± 14.91 31.29 ± 15.89 28.11 ± 13.01 MVPA 57.81 ± 24.92 60.31 ± 25.05 52.81 ± 24.80 TPA 194.36 ± 52.07 202.14 ± 54.13 178.79 ± 45.54 Weekend LPA 145.29 ± 57.71 150.03 ± 62.16 135.83 ± 48.32 MPA 27.15 ± 18.46 27.97 ± 20.57 25.51 ± 13.84 VPA 26.89 ± 15.62 28.00 ± 17.53 24.69 ± 11.08 MVPA 54.05 ± 30.69 55.97 ± 34.26 50.19 ± 22.56 TPA 199.34 ± 77.55 206.00 ± 82.15 186.02 ± 68.28 In-school LPA 46.15 ± 15.59 46.17 ± 13.85 46.10 ± 16.51 MPA 10.00 ± 5.49 10.46 ± 5.62 9.11 ± 5.32 VPA 11.48 ± 5.61 11.56 ± 5.53 11.32 ± 5.99 MVPA 21.49 ± 10.14 22.02 ± 10.12 20.42 ± 10.46 TPA 67.64 ± 19.97 68.19 ± 18.09 66.52 ± 24.00 Out-of-school LPA 71.97 ± 24.33b 76.70 ± 27.17a c 62.50 ± 13.76d MPA 13.81 ± 7.02b 14.96 ± 7.44c 11.53 ± 5.64 VPA 15.08 ± 9.73b 16.14 ± 11.07c 12.96 ± 6.06 MVPA 28.90 ± 14.83b 31.10 ± 16.06c 24.49 ± 11.24 TPA 100.86 ± 32.47b 107.80 ± 34.70a c 86.99 ± 22.68d PA barriers (point) Learning ability 2.98 ± 1.13 3.17 ± 1.15 2.62 ± 1.05 Others’ discriminatory attitude 2.99 ± 1.39 3.17 ± 1.28 2.64 ± 1.57 Physical condition 2.29 ± 1.03 2.30 ± 0.91 2.27 ±1.26 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 2.83 ± 1.09 2.86 ± 1.04 2.79 ± 1.22 Psychological characteristics 2.39 ± 1.18 2.55 ± 1.18 2.07 ± 1.14 Total score of barriers 13.49 ± 4.02 14.05 ± 3.74 12.39 ± 4.45 Note. LPA: light physical activity; MPA: moderate physical activity; VPA: vigorous physical activity; MVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; TPA: total physical activity; aP < 0.05, compared with girls; bP < 0.05, compared with in-school PA in all participants; cP < 0.05, compared with in-school PA in boys; dP < 0.05, compared with in-school PA in girls. Table 2 presents the regression analysis results of PA and their barriers. We only reported models with significant results. “Parents’ behaviour and attitude” was positively associated with overall participants’ weekend VPA, boys’ average daily VPA, and weekend VPA. However, it was negatively associated with girls’ weekday MPA, VPA, and MVPA (moderate-to-vigorous PA), and out-of-school MPA, VPA, and MVPA. This indicates that “parental behavior and attitude” may hinder girls’ PA, but not necessarily for boys. This could be related to the psychological differences between boys and girls, with boys being more energetic and risk-taking than girls, resulting in differing reactions to their parents’ attitudes. Previous research has found similar sex-based differences[6]. Parents play an important role as “gatekeepers” in the PA behavior of children and adolescents with TD[7]. This role of parents or other relatives is particularly important because individuals with ID face additional barriers to PA, and parental advocacy is critical to educating others about a child’s ability, providing support to others, finding additional activity opportunities, and ensuring the safety of child activities. Conversely, parents’ distrust of their child’s ability and overprotection may act as barriers to PA for the mentally disabled community due to the child’s identity as mentally disabled[8].
Table 2. Results of regression analysis of PA and their barriers for participants
Variables Total Boys Girls β P β P β P Average daily VPA Learning ability −0.120 0.548 −0.223 0.358 −0.130 0.720 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.156 0.476 −0.110 0.644 0.525 0.378 Physical condition −0.008 0.962 0.021 0.921 −0.233 0.537 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.307 0.142 0.534 0.032 −0.983 0.135 Psychological characteristics 0.008 0.969 −0.045 0.851 0.352 0.397 R2 0.104 0.275 0.558 Weekday MPA Learning ability −0.040 0.831 −0.112 0.649 −0.178 0.558 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.003 0.989 −0.094 0.698 1.163 0.044 Physical condition 0.012 0.943 0.019 0.930 −0.316 0.326 Parents’ behaviour and attitude −0.114 0.559 0.117 0.625 −1.611 0.014 Psychological characteristics 0.056 0.770 −0.032 0.895 0.582 0.119 R2 0.203 0.251 0.696 Weekday VPA Learning ability −0.134 0.511 −0.285 0.256 −0.035 0.916 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.113 0.612 −0.111 0.651 0.831 0.152 Physical condition 0.015 0.937 0.065 0.764 −0.314 0.374 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.209 0.325 0.468 0.064 −1.346 0.042 Psychological characteristics 0.036 0.860 0.052 0.834 0.304 0.423 R2 0.062 0.232 0.627 Weekday MVPA Learning ability −0.101 0.615 −0.240 0.356 −0.115 0.689 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.069 0.754 −0.120 0.638 1.069 0.050 Physical condition 0.015 0.934 0.051 0.820 −0.337 0.279 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.064 0.759 0.359 0.164 −1.582 0.013 Psychological characteristics 0.052 0.802 0.016 0.951 0.476 0.171 R2 0.080 0.170 0.721 Weekend VPA Learning ability 0.060 0.745 0.055 0.798 −0.195 0.590 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.173 0.396 −0.089 0.674 −0.341 0.554 Physical condition −0.116 0.490 −0.134 0.478 0.048 0.896 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.445 0.025 0.611 0.008 0.442 0.464 Psychological characteristics −0.219 0.249 −0.349 0.116 −0.038 0.924 R2 0.221 0.421 0.568 Weekend TPA Learning ability 0.175 0.377 0.258 0.295 −0.302 0.515 Others’ discriminatory attitude 0.003 0.989 −0.022 0.927 0.383 0.602 Physical condition −0.205 0.256 −0.286 0.188 −0.097 0.836 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.099 0.629 0.287 0.235 −0.444 0.560 Psychological characteristics −0.285 0.161 −0.507 0.048 0.247 0.630 R2 0.117 0.256 0.296 Out-of-school MPA Learning ability 0.266 0.168 0.150 0.550 0.047 0.853 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.207 0.324 −0.182 0.464 0.816 0.082 Physical condition 0.094 0.587 0.149 0.498 −0.225 0.408 Parents’ behaviour and attitude −0.150 0.449 0.085 0.728 −1.705 0.006 Psychological characteristics −0.030 0.877 −0.188 0.456 0.558 0.088 R2 0.178 0.213 0.777 Out-of-school VPA Learning ability −0.005 0.979 −0.189 0.446 0.164 0.601 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.211 0.338 −0.139 0.569 0.493 0.338 Physical condition 0.040 0.826 0.097 0.654 −0.244 0.455 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.191 0.358 0.409 0.100 −1.325 0.035 Psychological characteristics 0.041 0.841 0.008 0.974 0.251 0.477 R2 0.096 0.239 0.674 Out-of-school MVPA Learning ability 0.122 0.547 −0.060 0.816 0.112 0.675 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.236 0.292 −0.180 0.486 0.675 0.148 Physical condition 0.070 0.701 0.136 0.552 −0.244 0.388 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.054 0.796 0.321 0.215 −1.571 0.010 Psychological characteristics 0.013 0.951 −0.082 0.755 0.415 0.194 R2 0.066 0.150 0.760 Note. Adjusted for age and BMI of participants; R2, R square; β, standardized regression coefficient; P-values less than 0.05, in bold. “Psychological characteristics” are negatively associated with boys’ weekend TPA. Generating a sense of pleasure in PA can increase the motivation to participate in more PA, and subjectively perceived benefits and barriers to PA can significantly impact participants’ participation in PA[9]. In addition, promoting activity and positive experiences from an early age facilitates future activity, whereas early negative experiences may be a barrier to PA in adolescents with ID[10].
“Others’ discriminatory attitude” was positively associated with girls’ weekday MPA. This suggests that the discriminatory attitudes of others may encourage children and adolescents with ID to participate in PA. This anomalous result may be due to the specificity of the group of adolescents with ID, the insufficient effective sample size of the two schools, and PA, which may have resulted in random results in the data after a more detailed classification. Future studies could, therefore, attempt to increase the sample size and collect more comprehensive factors to improve the generalizability of the results.
This is one of the few empirical studies to use a combination of direct and indirect measures to investigate barriers to PA in Chinese children and adolescents with ID. In conclusion, the barriers to PA reported in this study for boys with mild to moderate ID may be psychological characteristics, whereas for girls, they may be parental behavior and attitude. Given the limited sample and cross-sectional design of this study, research with larger sample and more robust design is needed to provide stronger evidence on barriers of PA in the young ID group.
doi: 10.3967/bes2023.154
Barriers to Physical Activity among Children and Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities: A Cross-sectional Study
-
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
&These authors contributed equally to this work.
注释:1) Conflicts of Interest: -
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics (mean ± SD)
Variables Total (n = 42) Boys (n = 28) Girls (n = 14) Age (year) 11.45 ± 2.82 11.64 ± 2.88 11.07 ± 2.76 Height (cm) 145.87 ± 16.54 149.23 ± 18.05a 139.14 ± 10.64 Weight (kg) 46.49 ± 21.96 50.87 ± 23.48 37.73 ± 15.86 BMI (kg/m2) 20.89 ± 6.45 21.85 ± 6.68 18.97 ± 5.71 IQ score (point) 64.90 ± 13.70 67.04 ± 14.35 60.64 ± 11.61 PA (min/day) Average daily LPA 137.34 ± 41.20 142.53 ± 45.54 126.95 ± 29.52 MPA 26.83 ± 12.05 28.07 ± 11.92 24.36 ± 12.37 VPA 28.54 ± 13.22 29.72 ± 14.72 26.18 ± 9.58 MVPA 55.37 ± 21.95 57.79 ± 22.80 50.54 ± 20.04 TPA 192.71 ± 51.72 200.32 ± 53.78 177.49 ± 45.35 Weekday LPA 136.56 ± 40.22 141.84 ± 44.59 125.99 ± 28.15 MPA 27.58 ± 13.32 29.02 ± 13.24 24.69 ± 13.49 VPA 30.23 ± 14.91 31.29 ± 15.89 28.11 ± 13.01 MVPA 57.81 ± 24.92 60.31 ± 25.05 52.81 ± 24.80 TPA 194.36 ± 52.07 202.14 ± 54.13 178.79 ± 45.54 Weekend LPA 145.29 ± 57.71 150.03 ± 62.16 135.83 ± 48.32 MPA 27.15 ± 18.46 27.97 ± 20.57 25.51 ± 13.84 VPA 26.89 ± 15.62 28.00 ± 17.53 24.69 ± 11.08 MVPA 54.05 ± 30.69 55.97 ± 34.26 50.19 ± 22.56 TPA 199.34 ± 77.55 206.00 ± 82.15 186.02 ± 68.28 In-school LPA 46.15 ± 15.59 46.17 ± 13.85 46.10 ± 16.51 MPA 10.00 ± 5.49 10.46 ± 5.62 9.11 ± 5.32 VPA 11.48 ± 5.61 11.56 ± 5.53 11.32 ± 5.99 MVPA 21.49 ± 10.14 22.02 ± 10.12 20.42 ± 10.46 TPA 67.64 ± 19.97 68.19 ± 18.09 66.52 ± 24.00 Out-of-school LPA 71.97 ± 24.33b 76.70 ± 27.17a c 62.50 ± 13.76d MPA 13.81 ± 7.02b 14.96 ± 7.44c 11.53 ± 5.64 VPA 15.08 ± 9.73b 16.14 ± 11.07c 12.96 ± 6.06 MVPA 28.90 ± 14.83b 31.10 ± 16.06c 24.49 ± 11.24 TPA 100.86 ± 32.47b 107.80 ± 34.70a c 86.99 ± 22.68d PA barriers (point) Learning ability 2.98 ± 1.13 3.17 ± 1.15 2.62 ± 1.05 Others’ discriminatory attitude 2.99 ± 1.39 3.17 ± 1.28 2.64 ± 1.57 Physical condition 2.29 ± 1.03 2.30 ± 0.91 2.27 ±1.26 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 2.83 ± 1.09 2.86 ± 1.04 2.79 ± 1.22 Psychological characteristics 2.39 ± 1.18 2.55 ± 1.18 2.07 ± 1.14 Total score of barriers 13.49 ± 4.02 14.05 ± 3.74 12.39 ± 4.45 Note. LPA: light physical activity; MPA: moderate physical activity; VPA: vigorous physical activity; MVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; TPA: total physical activity; aP < 0.05, compared with girls; bP < 0.05, compared with in-school PA in all participants; cP < 0.05, compared with in-school PA in boys; dP < 0.05, compared with in-school PA in girls. Table 2. Results of regression analysis of PA and their barriers for participants
Variables Total Boys Girls β P β P β P Average daily VPA Learning ability −0.120 0.548 −0.223 0.358 −0.130 0.720 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.156 0.476 −0.110 0.644 0.525 0.378 Physical condition −0.008 0.962 0.021 0.921 −0.233 0.537 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.307 0.142 0.534 0.032 −0.983 0.135 Psychological characteristics 0.008 0.969 −0.045 0.851 0.352 0.397 R2 0.104 0.275 0.558 Weekday MPA Learning ability −0.040 0.831 −0.112 0.649 −0.178 0.558 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.003 0.989 −0.094 0.698 1.163 0.044 Physical condition 0.012 0.943 0.019 0.930 −0.316 0.326 Parents’ behaviour and attitude −0.114 0.559 0.117 0.625 −1.611 0.014 Psychological characteristics 0.056 0.770 −0.032 0.895 0.582 0.119 R2 0.203 0.251 0.696 Weekday VPA Learning ability −0.134 0.511 −0.285 0.256 −0.035 0.916 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.113 0.612 −0.111 0.651 0.831 0.152 Physical condition 0.015 0.937 0.065 0.764 −0.314 0.374 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.209 0.325 0.468 0.064 −1.346 0.042 Psychological characteristics 0.036 0.860 0.052 0.834 0.304 0.423 R2 0.062 0.232 0.627 Weekday MVPA Learning ability −0.101 0.615 −0.240 0.356 −0.115 0.689 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.069 0.754 −0.120 0.638 1.069 0.050 Physical condition 0.015 0.934 0.051 0.820 −0.337 0.279 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.064 0.759 0.359 0.164 −1.582 0.013 Psychological characteristics 0.052 0.802 0.016 0.951 0.476 0.171 R2 0.080 0.170 0.721 Weekend VPA Learning ability 0.060 0.745 0.055 0.798 −0.195 0.590 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.173 0.396 −0.089 0.674 −0.341 0.554 Physical condition −0.116 0.490 −0.134 0.478 0.048 0.896 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.445 0.025 0.611 0.008 0.442 0.464 Psychological characteristics −0.219 0.249 −0.349 0.116 −0.038 0.924 R2 0.221 0.421 0.568 Weekend TPA Learning ability 0.175 0.377 0.258 0.295 −0.302 0.515 Others’ discriminatory attitude 0.003 0.989 −0.022 0.927 0.383 0.602 Physical condition −0.205 0.256 −0.286 0.188 −0.097 0.836 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.099 0.629 0.287 0.235 −0.444 0.560 Psychological characteristics −0.285 0.161 −0.507 0.048 0.247 0.630 R2 0.117 0.256 0.296 Out-of-school MPA Learning ability 0.266 0.168 0.150 0.550 0.047 0.853 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.207 0.324 −0.182 0.464 0.816 0.082 Physical condition 0.094 0.587 0.149 0.498 −0.225 0.408 Parents’ behaviour and attitude −0.150 0.449 0.085 0.728 −1.705 0.006 Psychological characteristics −0.030 0.877 −0.188 0.456 0.558 0.088 R2 0.178 0.213 0.777 Out-of-school VPA Learning ability −0.005 0.979 −0.189 0.446 0.164 0.601 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.211 0.338 −0.139 0.569 0.493 0.338 Physical condition 0.040 0.826 0.097 0.654 −0.244 0.455 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.191 0.358 0.409 0.100 −1.325 0.035 Psychological characteristics 0.041 0.841 0.008 0.974 0.251 0.477 R2 0.096 0.239 0.674 Out-of-school MVPA Learning ability 0.122 0.547 −0.060 0.816 0.112 0.675 Others’ discriminatory attitude −0.236 0.292 −0.180 0.486 0.675 0.148 Physical condition 0.070 0.701 0.136 0.552 −0.244 0.388 Parents’ behaviour and attitude 0.054 0.796 0.321 0.215 −1.571 0.010 Psychological characteristics 0.013 0.951 −0.082 0.755 0.415 0.194 R2 0.066 0.150 0.760 Note. Adjusted for age and BMI of participants; R2, R square; β, standardized regression coefficient; P-values less than 0.05, in bold. -
[1] Janssen I, Leblanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 2010; 7, 40. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40 [2] Yu SY, Wang TJ, Zhong TW, et al. Barriers and facilitators of physical activity participation among children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities: a scoping review. Healthcare, 2022; 10, 233. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10020233 [3] McGarty AM, Downs SJ, Melville CA, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to increase physical activity in children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res, 2018; 62, 312−29. [4] Sutherland L, McGarty AM, Melville CA, et al. Correlates of physical activity in children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. J Intellect Disabil Res, 2021; 65, 405−36. doi: 10.1111/jir.12811 [5] Zhu Z, Chen PJ, Zhuang J. Intensity classification accuracy of accelerometer-measured physical activities in Chinese children and youth. Res Quart Exerc Sport, 2013; 84 Suppl 2, S4-11. [6] Patnode CD, Lytle LA, Erickson DJ, et al. The relative influence of demographic, individual, social, and environmental factors on physical activity among boys and girls. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 2010; 7, 79. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-79 [7] Trost SG, Sallis JF, Pate RR, et al. Evaluating a model of parental influence on youth physical activity. Am J Prev Med, 2003; 25, 277−82. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(03)00217-4 [8] Njelesani J, Leckie K, Drummond J, et al. Parental perceptions of barriers to physical activity in children with developmental disabilities living in Trinidad and Tobago. Disabil Rehabil, 2015; 37, 290−5. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.918186 [9] De Bourdeaudhuij I, Sallis J. Relative contribution of psychosocial variables to the explanation of physical activity in three population-based adult samples. Prev Med, 2002; 34, 279−88. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2001.0979 [10] Grandisson M, Tétreault S, Freeman AR. Enabling integration in sports for adolescents with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil, 2012; 25, 217−30.