James H Rimmer1, Sangeetha Padalabalanarayanan2, Laurie A Malone3, Tapan Mehta4. 1. University of Alabama at Birmingham/Lakeshore Foundation Research Collaborative, 4000 Ridgeway Dr., Birmingham, AL, 35209, USA. Electronic address: jrimmer@uab.edu. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham/Lakeshore Foundation Research Collaborative, 4000 Ridgeway Dr., Birmingham, AL, 35209, USA. Electronic address: sangee@uab.edu. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham/Lakeshore Foundation Research Collaborative, 4000 Ridgeway Dr., Birmingham, AL, 35209, USA. Electronic address: lamalone@uab.edu. 4. University of Alabama at Birmingham/Lakeshore Foundation Research Collaborative, 4000 Ridgeway Dr., Birmingham, AL, 35209, USA; Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. Electronic address: tapan@uab.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fitness facilities have potential to serve as places of 'health enhancement' for many underserved populations, particularly among people with physical/mobility disabilities where walking outdoors to meet recommendations for regular physical activity is not an option due to mobility or safety issues. OBJECTIVE: To examine the accessibility and usability of fitness facilities across the U.S. from a broader framework of physical and program access. METHODS: A convenience sample of 227 fitness facilities in 10 states were assessed by trained evaluators using the Accessibility Instrument Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments (AIMFREE) tool. Non-parametric tests were performed to determine whether AIMFREE section scores were different by geographic region (urban, suburban), business type (nonprofit, for-profit), facility affiliation (fitness center/health club, park district/community center, hospital/rehabilitation facility, university/college), and facility construction date (pre/post passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA). Raw scores were converted to scaled scores with higher scores indicating better accessibility based on a criterion-referenced approach. RESULTS: Section scale scores (11/13) were low (<70) with differences found across facility affiliation. While facilities built after passage of the ADA had higher accessibility scores compared to pre-ADA facilities, only programs and water fountains had scaled scores ≥70 regardless of facility construction date. CONCLUSIONS: There exists a strong and urgent need to encourage owners and operators of fitness facilities to reach a higher level of accessibility. Until then, many people with physical/mobility disabilities will continue to have limited access to programs, equipment, and services offered at these facilities.
BACKGROUND: Fitness facilities have potential to serve as places of 'health enhancement' for many underserved populations, particularly among people with physical/mobility disabilities where walking outdoors to meet recommendations for regular physical activity is not an option due to mobility or safety issues. OBJECTIVE: To examine the accessibility and usability of fitness facilities across the U.S. from a broader framework of physical and program access. METHODS: A convenience sample of 227 fitness facilities in 10 states were assessed by trained evaluators using the Accessibility Instrument Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments (AIMFREE) tool. Non-parametric tests were performed to determine whether AIMFREE section scores were different by geographic region (urban, suburban), business type (nonprofit, for-profit), facility affiliation (fitness center/health club, park district/community center, hospital/rehabilitation facility, university/college), and facility construction date (pre/post passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA). Raw scores were converted to scaled scores with higher scores indicating better accessibility based on a criterion-referenced approach. RESULTS: Section scale scores (11/13) were low (<70) with differences found across facility affiliation. While facilities built after passage of the ADA had higher accessibility scores compared to pre-ADA facilities, only programs and water fountains had scaled scores ≥70 regardless of facility construction date. CONCLUSIONS: There exists a strong and urgent need to encourage owners and operators of fitness facilities to reach a higher level of accessibility. Until then, many people with physical/mobility disabilities will continue to have limited access to programs, equipment, and services offered at these facilities.
Authors: NaTasha D Hollis; Qing C Zhang; Alissa C Cyrus; Elizabeth Courtney-Long; Kathleen Watson; Dianna D Carroll Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Richard A Washburn; Lauren T Ptomey; Anna M Gorczyca; Patricia R Smith; Matthew S Mayo; Robert Lee; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Katie M Heinrich; Christopher K Haddock; Natinee Jitnarin; Joseph Hughey; LaVerne A Berkel; Walker S C Poston Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2017-11-28
Authors: Nathan W Carroll; Allyson G Hall; Sue Feldman; Mohanraj Thirumalai; Jamie Tinker Wade; James H Rimmer Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-04-08