Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a well-constructed evaluation of the relationship between quality and quantity of participation in a community-based exercise program implemented remotely in participants' homes. The introduction grounds the project in relevant literature, utilizing a theoretical framework that supports the research questions. The methodological approach of mixed methods is a strength and is described well.

A few clarifications and additional information would be helpful in the following areas:

• It is unclear whether a member check was performed with the semi-structured interview data.
• The relationship between participants and interns emerged as an important aspect in the findings. More information about the interns’ backgrounds and training would be helpful. 
• The manuscript describes group exercise classes as part of the 10-week program but lacks clarity on if participants in this study were involved in both 1:1 and group classes?
• Include data on average attendance for each type of session and number of participants per group.
• Were the same interns responsible for leading group sessions, and how did that dynamic compare to 1:1 sessions?
• The methods section could benefit from more details on how participants were assigned or chose between 1:1 and group sessions, especially given the limited group attendance noted in the discussion.
• Provide more detail on how participants were recruited into the 10-week program (how they learned about it)
• In the results and discussion sections meaning is related to quantity of participation. What is described seems to align with the concept of motivation often discussed in exercise literature; in this case intrinsic motivation being sense of achievement and meeting goals and extrinsic motivation being showing up because interns expect them to. Please expand on how meaning and motivation align or don't align in the context of these results. 

Author Response

It is unclear whether a member check was performed with the semi-structured interview data.

Thank you for the comment. A member check was not performed on this data. We have added a sentence to addressed this comment in section 2.1 (lines 126-128). This decision was made primarily to reduce emotional and cognitive burden for participants, who were already managing social isolation and other stressors during the study period (i.e., during COVID-19 lockdowns).

 

The relationship between participants and interns emerged as an important aspect in the findings. More information about the interns’ backgrounds and training would be helpful. 

We appreciate this comment and agree with you that adding information about the interns’ training would be helpful. We have included a sentence in section 2.3 that outlines the interns educational background and training (lines 159-164).

 

The manuscript describes group exercise classes as part of the 10-week program but lacks clarity on if participants in this study were involved in both 1:1 and group classes?

• Include data on average attendance for each type of session and number of participants per group.
• Were the same interns responsible for leading group sessions, and how did that dynamic compare to 1:1 sessions?
• The methods section could benefit from more details on how participants were assigned or chose between 1:1 and group sessions, especially given the limited group attendance noted in the discussion.

Thank you for these comments. We do not have data regarding attendance for the group exercise sessions; the finding that many participants did not attend the group exercise sessions was primarily derived from the interviews. However, we agree that this data would be beneficial towards supporting our point that group exercise sessions, if administered correctly, can enhance participant experience. The group exercise sessions were not a focus of our study; however, it was an aspect of Revved Up @ Home program.  We have provided more context for the engagement of individual versus group activities in section 2.3 (lines 172-176).

 

Provide more detail on how participants were recruited into the 10-week program (how they learned about it)

In section 2.4, we have addressed how participants learned about the Revved Up @ Home program, and subsequently how they learned about participating in our study (lines 178-182 and lines 184-187).

 

In the results and discussion sections meaning is related to quantity of participation. What is described seems to align with the concept of motivation often discussed in exercise literature; in this case intrinsic motivation being sense of achievement and meeting goals and extrinsic motivation being showing up because interns expect them to. Please expand on how meaning and motivation align or don't align in the context of these results. 

Thank you for your comment. We have expanded the discussion in the Discussion section (lines 657-663) to address the relationship between meaning and motivation. Specifically, we outline how participants’ perceived meaning aligns with both intrinsic motivation (e.g., sense of personal achievement and goal fulfillment) and extrinsic motivation (e.g., a sense of obligation to interns). We suggest that in our study context, meaning may serve as an integrative construct that helps transform external motivators into internalized values, thereby supporting sustained participation over time. This expansion helps clarify the psychological mechanisms that underlie participants’ continued engagement and situates the findings more clearly within the exercise motivation literature.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and underexplored topic in disability and exercise science: the interplay between quality and quantity of participation in community-based exercise programs (CBEPs). The use of a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design is appropriate and well justified, and the integration of qualitative and quantitative data adds depth to the findings. The manuscript is generally well written, with clear articulation of the theoretical framework and methodological approach. This manuscript makes a valuable contribution to understanding participation in CBEPs for individuals with physical disabilities, and it will be a strong addition to the literature.

I found the results and discussion sections somewhat difficult to follow, particularly in terms of how the quantitative and qualitative findings are integrated and interpreted. Below are specific comments and suggestions for improvement.

Major Comments

1. The correlation matrix (Table 3) shows mostly small or negligible relationships between quality and quantity of participation, yet the discussion emphasizes a “moderate” relationship (r = .34) between attendance and total quality participation. This could be misleading without statistical significance. Clarify that none of the correlations were statistically significant and discuss the implications of this more explicitly. Consider tempering language around the strength of the relationships.
2. The manuscript states that qualitative findings were prioritized when discrepancies arose between quantitative and qualitative data. However, the rationale for this prioritization could be better explained. Provide a clearer justification, in addition to what you have already, for prioritizing qualitative data, especially in light of the weak quantitative findings. Consider discussing how this aligns with the critical realist framework.
3. The finding that engagement did not relate to quality or quantity of participation is surprising and underexplored. Discuss possible reasons for this finding in more depth. Could it be due to limitations in how engagement was measured or the nature of the online format?

Author Response

The correlation matrix (Table 3) shows mostly small or negligible relationships between quality and quantity of participation, yet the discussion emphasizes a “moderate” relationship (r = .34) between attendance and total quality participation. This could be misleading without statistical significance. Clarify that none of the correlations were statistically significant and discuss the implications of this more explicitly. Consider tempering language around the strength of the relationships.

Thank you for this comment. We agree that this could be misleading, and have moved the statement “None of these results were statistically significant” to earlier in the paragraph (line 354) prior stating the results in Section 3.3. We have also added a sentence in the discussion section to reiterate that these results were not statistically significant (line 608-609).

 

The manuscript states that qualitative findings were prioritized when discrepancies arose between quantitative and qualitative data. However, the rationale for this prioritization could be better explained. Provide a clearer justification, in addition to what you have already, for prioritizing qualitative data, especially in light of the weak quantitative findings. Consider discussing how this aligns with the critical realist framework.

Thank you for your comment. You bring up a fair criticism of our integration section, as we had not aligned our philosophical assumptions with our justification for prioritizing the qualitative findings. To address this comment, we have added a sentence in section 2.6.4 (lines 316-322) that outlines the process of “retroduction” (derived from critical realism), which is a method that seeks to identify social systems and phenomena that have been identified empirically but require qualitative inquiry. In this addition, we highlight for readers that previous work has postulated and demonstrated that there is a relationship between quality and quantity of participation, but that the purpose of this study is to specifically characterize/explore that relationship.

 

The finding that engagement did not relate to quality or quantity of participation is surprising and underexplored. Discuss possible reasons for this finding in more depth. Could it be due to limitations in how engagement was measured or the nature of the online format?

Thank you for this comment. We have added an additional paragraph (lines 672-681) in the discussion section that outlines in depth, our rationale for why engagement does not demonstrate a clear relationship with quality participation. We primarily believe this is due to the lack of social connections and shared experiences that are present during the in-person programming but are absent from the online format of the program.