MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321353148 · doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7111

How Did Governments Address the Needs of People With Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic? An Analysis of 14 Countries’ Policies Based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities

2023· article· en· W4321353148 on OpenAlex
Keiko Shikako‐Thomas, Raphael Lencucha, Matthew Hunt, Sébastien Jodoin, Mayada Elsabbagh, Anne Hudon, Derrick L. Cogburn, Ananya Chandra, Anna Gignac-Eddy, Nilani Ananthamoorthy, Rachel Martens

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-RéadaptationCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Human rightsConventionPolitical sciencePandemicInclusion (mineral)Economic growthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public relationsSociologyMedicineLawEconomicsGeographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People with disabilities have experienced heightened social risks in the context of the pandemic, resulting in higher rates of infection and mortality. They have also borne elevated burdens associated with public health measures. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) obliges its 184 state parties to eliminate discrimination and ensure equality and inclusion for persons with disabilities, including protection and safety in situations of emergency. It remains unclear to what extent national COVID-19 policies have aligned with these commitments under the UNCRPD. Our objective in this exploratory study was to assess alignment between the UNCRPD indicators and COVID-19 policies from 14 countries with the goal of informing policy development that is inclusive of persons with disabilities and responsive to rights under the UNCRPD. METHODS: We identified COVID-19 policy documents from 14 purposively selected countries. Country selection considered diversity based on geographic regions and national income levels, with restriction to those countries that had ratified the UNCRPD and had English or French as an official language. We used a computational text mining approach and developed a complex multilevel dictionary or categorization model based on the UNCRPD Bridging the Gap indicators proposed by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR). This dictionary was used to assess the extent to which indicators across the entirety of the UNCRPD were represented in the selected policies. We analyzed frequency of associations with UNCRPD, as well as conducting 'key word in context' analyses to identify themes. RESULTS: We identified 764 COVID-19 national policy documents from the period of January 2020 to June 2021. When analyzed in relation to the Articles of the UNCRPD, the most frequently identified were Articles 11 (risk and humanitarian emergencies), 23 (home and family), 24 (education), and 19 (community living). Six countries produced 27 policies that were specifically focused on disability. Common themes within these documents included continuation of services, intersectionality and equity, and disability considerations in regulations and public health measures. CONCLUSION: Analyzing country policies in light of the UNCRPD offers important insights about how these policies do and do not align with states' commitments. As new policies are developed and existing ones revised, more comprehensive approaches to addressing the rights of persons with disabilities are urgently needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it