Housing, Transportation and Quality of Life among People with Mobility Limitations: A Critical Review of Relationships and Issues Related to Access to Home- and Community-Based Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anecdotal reports suggest that adequate housing and transportation could be fundamental elements required to ensure quality of life (QOL) for people with mobility limitations. Certain home- and community-based services (HCBS) are also necessary to ensure that housing and transportation needs are met. Understanding QOL as it relates to housing and transportation is critical for people with mobility limitations but requires appropriate assessment of these constructs. The aims of this research were to explore the relationships between housing and transportation on QOL for people with mobility limitations, to describe the current conceptual measurement issues and to propose dimensions of access that could facilitate assessment of QOL as it relates to housing, transportation and HCBS. A critical review of the literature was conducted by experts in disability, QOL and access theory. While evidence indicated a potential influence of housing and transportation on QOL for people with mobility limitations, the relationships between these concepts were weak and inconclusive. Moreover, the measurement tools used lacked appropriateness to specifically measure these constructs. Approaching these measurement issues within an access theory may better position future research to address the housing, transportation and HSBS needs of people with mobility limitations. Future research may consider elements of availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, acceptability and awareness to ensure access for people with mobility limitations. A better understanding of QOL as it relates to housing, transportation and HCBS will improve the quality of research, which may in turn improve access of adequate services for people with mobility limitations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".