Public Transport Accessibility for People With Disabilities: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
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 | 0.091 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 0.020 |
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".