A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators Affecting the Lives of People With Disabilities During COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This scoping review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to everyday activities and social participation of people with a disability (PWD) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The search terms (disability and COVID-19) were used in four databases: CINAHL, Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Web of Science. The search conducted from January 2019 to September 22, 2020, identified 465 peer reviewed articles and abstracts and were screened in Covidence software. Studies were included if they had the terms "COVID-19" and "disability," were published in English, and specifically examined how COVID-19 impacted the daily lives of PWD. Exclusion criteria included: disability as a symptom or result of COVID-19, the health outcomes when PWD acquired COVID-19, disability leave for someone who is sick and the risk of acquiring the disease for PWD. 74 articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed via data charting. Charting began with existing barriers and facilitators identified by the World Health Organization and new barriers and facilitators, that emerged from the texts were added during this process. Results: The barriers that emerged included: access to information, ease of communication, financial impacts, mental health impacts, access to essential services, physical safety, educational challenges, and changes to care and rehabilitation. Significant facilitators included: changes to care and rehabilitation, new innovations, social and familial support and inclusive policy measures. Conclusion: COVID-19 exacerbated existing challenges in the lives of PWD and raised new quality of life concerns. Findings also demonstrate that policy makers, health care professionals and others continually support PWD in times of crisis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".