Workplace accommodations during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of the impacts and implications for people with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread changes in the way people work. Some of these changes represent the same kinds of work modifications or adjustments that have often been requested as workplace accommodations, and which may improve labour market and employment outcomes for people with disabilities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to examine the literature on workplace accommodations in the pandemic and their impacts and implications for people with disabilities. METHODS: Following a search of six international databases, articles were selected by two reviewers, and data were abstracted in accordance with scoping review methodology. A thematic analysis was used to report the relevant findings. RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria, and three main themes were identified: positive impacts of pandemic-related workplace accommodations on people with disabilities (e.g., improved accessibility, reduced stigma around workplace accommodations, rapid implementation of workplace accommodations, opportunities for advocacy); negative impacts (e.g., worsened physical and mental health, new accommodation needs); and action needed and recommendations (e.g., revisit legislation and policy on accommodations, ensure representation of people with disabilities). Overall, our review identified a mixed assessment of the impacts of pandemic-related accommodations on people with disabilities. However, there was a broader consensus regarding the importance of learning from the experiences of the pandemic to improve workplace accommodation policies in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic may present opportunities for improving workplace accommodation policies, but our review also highlights the need for more research examining how workplace changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted people with disabilities.
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 | 0.014 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".