Out of 102 studies reviewed, only 26 focused on adults with physical disabilities. The majority of the literature reflects non-disabled experiences and priorities, implying that what counts as "inclusive" in research and policy is still heavily influenced by the majority group.

The Dominance of the Non-Disabled Perspective

According to the study, fitness center managers, instructors, and policymakers all define accessibility in different ways. Some associate it with legal compliance, while others see it as continuous adaptation. This definitional ambiguity leads to inconsistent practice and perpetuates exclusion.

The study identifies not only physical barriers, but also the emotional impact of exclusion, fear, shame, or "othering" faced by disabled participants. These feelings stem from repeated reminders that spaces were not designed with them in mind, which reinforces internalized exclusion.

Inaccessibility as Psycho-Emotional Disablism

Nikolajsen, Helene, et al. “Barriers to, and Facilitators of, Exercising in Fitness Centres among Adults with and without Physical Disabilities: A Scoping Review.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 14, 2021, p. 7341. MDPI, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147341

Reference For: Barriers to, and Facilitators of, Exercising in Fitness Centres
among Adults with and without Physical Disabilities:
A Scoping Review

Definitional Ambiguity in “Accessibility”

Repeated exclusion teaches disabled people to anticipate rejection before it occurs. When spaces signal "you don't belong," the message is internalized, leading to self-exclusion. Real accessibility must address both physical barriers and the emotional withdrawal that exclusion causes.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After