Public Transport Accessibility for People With Disabilities: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Transportation is essential for people of all ages and backgrounds to live a fulfilling and satisfying life. Public transport (PT) can facilitate access to the community and improve social participation. However, people with disabilities may encounter barriers or facilitators in the whole travel chain that can lead to negative or positive perceptions in terms of self-efficacy or satisfaction. These barriers may be perceived depending on the nature of the disability. Few studies have identified PT barriers and facilitators experienced by people with disabilities. However, findings were focused mainly on specific disabilities. Access requires broader considerations of barriers and facilitators for various types of disabilities. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aims to describe the barriers and facilitators to the use of PT experienced by people with various disabilities in the whole travel chain and to explore perceived experiences, self-efficacy, and satisfaction when using PT. METHODS A scoping review will be conducted using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. The literature search will be conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE, Transport Database, and PsycINFO via Ovid platform, Embase, and Web of Science from 1995 to 2022. Two reviewers will independently identify studies based on inclusion (published in English or French, outcomes on PT accessibility for people with disabilities, peer-reviewed or guideline reports or editorials) and exclusion (no full text, focused on a technology system, outcome validation study, study on no-fixed route PT accessibility, etc) criteria and extract the data. When a study has addressed the accessibility of multiple modes of PT, including fixed-route PT, it will be retained. However, only data on fixed-route PT will be extracted. Any related systematic reviews identified through the search will be retained, and the reference lists will be hand-searched and screened for inclusion criteria. RESULTS The search we performed on July 21, 2022, in the databases mentioned above allowed us to retrieve 6399 citations. Of these citations, 31 articles were identified, and data extraction was performed. As of March 11, 2023, we have started data analysis. The findings will be synthesized narratively to summarize the barriers and facilitators to PT, perceived experiences with PT, self-efficacy for using PT, and satisfaction with PT according to the Human Development Model-Disability Creation Process conceptual framework. CONCLUSIONS The results of this scoping review could lead to a better understanding of the potential barriers and facilitators to the use of PT by people with various types of disabilities and how negative or positive experiences throughout the travel may influence their self-efficacy and satisfaction. The results may be used to provide recommendations to PT providers and policy makers to work together to make PT accessible, usable, and inclusive for all people with disabilities. CLINICALTRIAL Open Science Framework OSF.IO/2JDQS; https://osf.io/2jdqs INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/43188
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,091 | 0,104 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,127 | 0,020 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».