Literature Review Messent et al (1998,1999) Robertson et al (2000) Beart et al (2001) Heller et al (2002)

Barriers Resources e.g. staff support Policy/priorities Opportunities Transport/finance/access

Method Subjects. 45 adults(m27/f18) 24-49yrs Settings. 2xDay centres(35) 6 Houses (10) Design. Interview /ethnographic based Procedure. 12mths Multi/site/off road/key access Analysis. Transcript (78) Thematic content

Barriers to cycling ‘ all about support and staff initiative. That has been the same before and after this intervention’ Findings

Staff Interface: ‘they tend to do the minimum and only one or two drive things through’ Staff support : ‘Not enough staff to cope with ever bodies wants and needs. Cant keep them all happy’ (TV3)

Opportunity for activity ‘We need more activity choice and variation. We downgrade the activities to fit the circumstances’ (RV2; TV6) ‘ it is difficult to keep them on task and motivated ’ ‘ There is an awful lot of sitting about for people with learning difficulties ’.

‘ If we had more bikes we could get more cycling. It ’ s brilliant ’. (AdH2). Opportunity for activity-cycling ‘ Options have been enriched, and provided an extra activity ’ ‘ it is an activity that involves real participation, and ‘ it is just what we are looking for’. (RV2, RV4, TV 1),

1) Accommodating impairments ‘it is comfortable and secure’ ‘ Cycling is so simple and a most basic thing can do ’ ‘ builds teamwork, develops relationships and gives independence ’ ‘ motivation is a biggy ’. ‘ Fun ’.+++

2. Offering Accessibility and Flexibility Impact on staff support ‘ It is the flexibility. Even if you are short of staff you can still find time to take them out ’, (LW2; RV4) Impact on the interface ‘was more motivating for us and them’ It gets us and them out of a rut’,

Cycle use Day centre min plus a session (*Max 6 hours) Day centre 2. 1 session 20 –30 min Housing network. Average one per month (* 5 x week)

Conclusions Meets Need Offers opportunities Breaks Barriers FUN +++