Kelly Arbour -Nicitopoulos, Ph.D.

1. Accessibility of Physical Activity Setting: The State of the Matter Kelly Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University SCI Action Canada arbourkp@mcmaster.ca

2. Barriers to Physical Activity in People Living With Disabilities • Personal barriers • E.g., pain • Psychological barriers • e.g., motivation • Environmental barriers E.g., facility accessibility*

3. Defining the Physical Activity “Environment” • Physical (Built) environment • Features of buildings or spaces • E.g., presence/quality of sidewalks, narrow doorways and parking spaces, poor lighting • Social environment • Attitudes of others, access to information • E.g., social support, inclusivity of policies and programs

4. Universal Accessibility • A “philosophy” • Creating environments that are usable for all potential users (“barrier-free designs”) • Fundamental to inclusion • independence, competence, and autonomy • **Participation** (Bérubé, 1981; Jones & Tamari, 1997) (ALACD, 2010)

5. Universal Accessibility Guidelines: Canada • ~ 1 in 7 Ontarians have a disability • ~1 in 5 Ontarians by 2020 • Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA, 2005) • Goal: make Ontario ‘accessible’ by 2025 • First standard to come into effect was the Accessibility Standards for Customer Service (January 1, 2008) • Other standards to develop: built environment, information, employment, transportation http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/index.aspx

6. Universal Accessibility Guidelines: US • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) • Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG, 2002) • Chapter specific to guidelines for recreation and fitness facilities • Focus is on the structural environment only • Very specific structural requirements (e.g., # of accessible parking spaces)

7. Physical Activity Facility Accessibility(Arbour-Nicitopoulos, KP & Martin Ginis, KA. (2011). Examining the accessibility of fitness and recreational facilities for persons living with mobility disabilities. Adapt Phys Activ Q, 28, 1-15) • Are the physical and social environments of Hamilton fitness and recreational facilities that are advertised to be “accessible” suitable for persons with mobility disabilities?

8. Facility Screening • A series of searches on the Internet, in the Yellow Pages, and the City of Hamilton Sports and Recreation directory were conducted to identify facilities, using keywords fitness, health clubs, and recreational centres. • Facilities that advertised providing “adaptive” exercise equipment or programming for persons with disabilities (n=56) were called to obtain verbal consent, and to schedule one on-site assessment during daylight hours.

9. Method • Facilities • 44 facilities (19 fitness, 25 recreational) • Procedure • One on-site environmental assessment • Direct observations, staff interview • Standardized tool (AIMFREE)

10. AIMFREE • Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreational Environments (AIMFREE) (Rimmer et al., 2004) • Modified version: 10 subscales divided into five accessibility-related areas: • Built environment • Equipment • Policies • Professional behaviour • Swimming pool

11. Examples of AIMFREE Items

12. (Arbour-Nicitopoulos & Martin Ginis, 2011)

13. Universal Accessibility Ratings (Arbour-Nicitopoulos & Martin Ginis, 2011)

14. Which group(s) of individuals are in the best position to really make a difference in improving the universal accessibility of PA facilities for persons with disabilities?

15. Fitness Professionals • Personal trainers • Other fitness facility personnel • Recreational therapists • Physiotherapists

16. “Train-the-Trainer” • Background on the disability • Medical complications, risk factors • Awareness of clients’ abilities • “How much can I push my client?” • Locating equipment and resources • Internet, books, other allied professionals • Patience and encouragement • Transportation difficulties (Pereira & Arbour-Nicitopoulos, unpublished)

17. Fitness Professionals Accessibility Coaching Tools • On-line coaching tool specific to fitness professionals • Certification courses • Via OKA, Can-fit Pro, YMCA • Experiential workshops • “experts” training “novices” (Pereira & Arbour-Nicitopoulos, unpublished)

18. References • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (1990). Accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities. Architectural and transportation barriers compliance board. Final guidelines. Federal Register, 56, 35408-35542. • Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, & Martin Ginis KA. (2011). Universal accessibility of ‘accessible’ fitness and recreational facilities for persons with mobility disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 28, 1-15. • Cardinal BJ, & Spaziani MD. (2003). ADA compliance and the accessibility of physical activity facilities in Western Oregon. American Journal of Health Promotion, 17, 197-201. • National Center on Physical Activity and Disability (NCPAD). www.ncpad.org • Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services. AODA. www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/index.aspx • Rimmer JH, Riley B, Wang E, & Rauworth A. (2004). Development and validation of AIMFREE: Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 1087-1095. • SCI Action Canada. www.sciactioncanada.ca • US Access Board. (2002). Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, for Recreational Facilities. www.accessboard.gov/recreation/final.htm

19. Accessibility of Physical Activity Setting: The State of the Matter Kelly Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University SCI Action Canada arbourkp@mcmaster.ca