Fitness for all: how do non-disabled people respond to inclusive fitness centres?

Helene Nikolajsen, Emma Victoria Richardson, Louise Fleng Sandal, Birgit Juul-Kristensen, Jens Troelsen
Author Information
  1. Helene Nikolajsen: Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, 5230, Odense, Denmark. hnikolajsen@health.sdu.dk. ORCID
  2. Emma Victoria Richardson: School of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK.
  3. Louise Fleng Sandal: Research Unit for Physical Activity and Health in Work Life, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
  4. Birgit Juul-Kristensen: Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, 5230, Odense, Denmark.
  5. Jens Troelsen: Research Unit for Active Living, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Representation of people with disabilities in fitness centres is lacking, despite initiatives to promote inclusion mainly in the UK and USA. Success creating these inclusive spaces is mixed and few were crafted taking into account attitudes and biases of non-disabled co-members. Inclusive fitness centres have not gained much attention in Denmark, and the campaign 'Fitness for All - fitness for people with physical disabilities' was initiated. The aim of this study was shaped by two key questions; 1) what is the ideal fitness space from the perception of non-disabled fitness users? and 2) how might their dis/ableist attitudes negate inclusion in three future pilot inclusive fitness centres across Denmark?
METHOD: Three focus groups involving 5-7 (total n = 18) adult non-disabled participants were conducted. Aged ranged between 19 and 75 years, both men and women were involved, with fitness centre experiences ranging from 0 to 20+ years. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using Malterud's four-step method of systematic text condensation.
RESULTS: Of most importance was a pleasant atmosphere which should make them feel welcome and comfortable. Good social relations within the space were also highly valued. Participants welcomed people with physical disabilities but predicted many challenges with an inclusive fitness centre and expressed unconscious ableist attitudes.
CONCLUSION: The current study adds essential knowledge regarding how non-disabled people perceive the ideal inclusive fitness centre. A welcoming and inviting atmosphere is essential whereas social skills, ableism, ignorance, and preconceptions are important barriers that may hinder inclusion of participants with disabilities in inclusive fitness centres.

Keywords

References

  1. Spinal Cord. 2015 Jul;53(7):515-9 [PMID: 25777328]
  2. Am J Health Promot. 2005 May-Jun;19(5):327-9, ii [PMID: 15895533]
  3. Support Care Cancer. 2019 Jan;27(1):199-208 [PMID: 29931489]
  4. J Occup Health Psychol. 2008 Oct;13(4):371-80 [PMID: 18837631]
  5. Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Nov;26(6):898-907 [PMID: 30047622]
  6. Disabil Health J. 2018 Oct;11(4):525-536 [PMID: 29936142]
  7. US News World Rep. 2007 Jun 11;142(21):66-7 [PMID: 17621758]
  8. Disabil Health J. 2017 Apr;10(2):214-221 [PMID: 28143707]
  9. Health Psychol Rev. 2016 Dec;10(4):478-494 [PMID: 27265062]
  10. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 May 9;63(18):407-13 [PMID: 24807240]
  11. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2019 Feb 21;11:2 [PMID: 30828457]
  12. Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Sep;39(19):1950-1957 [PMID: 27626359]
  13. Eur J Psychol. 2015 Aug 20;11(3):442-58 [PMID: 27247669]
  14. Health Care Women Int. 2009 Aug;30(8):743-66 [PMID: 19575325]
  15. J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Sep;30(9):2550-6 [PMID: 26817738]
  16. J Aging Phys Act. 2006 Jul;14(3):313-24 [PMID: 17090808]
  17. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010 Feb;21(1):221-8 [PMID: 20173264]
  18. Clin Med Res. 2014 Sep;12(1-2):10-20 [PMID: 24415748]
  19. Am J Health Promot. 1995 May-Jun;9(5):340-3 [PMID: 10150765]
  20. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(4):404-25 [PMID: 25211208]
  21. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 09;18(14): [PMID: 34299792]
  22. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2017 Jul;34(3):276-294 [PMID: 28727508]
  23. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57 [PMID: 17872937]
  24. Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Jan;39(2):193-200 [PMID: 28664759]
  25. Disabil Health J. 2017 Jan;10(1):157-162 [PMID: 27687636]
  26. J Aging Phys Act. 2018 Jul 1;26(3):492-498 [PMID: 29091511]
  27. Annu Rev Psychol. 2016;67:1-21 [PMID: 26361053]
  28. Scand J Public Health. 2012 Dec;40(8):795-805 [PMID: 23221918]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0fitnessinclusivepeoplenon-disabledcentrecentresdisabilitiesinclusionattitudesFitnessInclusivephysicalstudyidealspaceparticipantsatmospheresocialessentialBACKGROUND:RepresentationlackingdespiteinitiativespromotemainlyUKUSASuccesscreatingspacesmixedcraftedtakingaccountbiasesco-membersgainedmuchattentionDenmarkcampaign'FitnessAll - fitnessdisabilities'initiatedaimshapedtwokeyquestions1perceptionusers?2mightdis/ableistnegatethreefuturepilotacrossDenmark?METHOD:Threefocusgroupsinvolving5-7totaln = 18adultconductedAgedranged1975 yearsmenwomeninvolvedexperiencesranging020+yearsInterviewstranscribedanalysedusingMalterud'sfour-stepmethodsystematictextcondensationRESULTS:importancepleasantmakefeelwelcomecomfortableGoodrelationswithinalsohighlyvaluedParticipantswelcomedpredictedmanychallengesexpressedunconsciousableistCONCLUSION:currentaddsknowledgeregardingperceivewelcominginvitingwhereasskillsableismignorancepreconceptionsimportantbarriersmayhinderall:respondcentres?DisabilitiesFocusgroupinterviewsGymInclusionQualitativeresearch

Similar Articles

Cited By