Barriers and facilitators of public transport use among people with disabilities: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barriers to public transport use may be experienced differently by people with various types of disabilities (e.g., physical, intellectual, cognitive, sensory). Thus, it is important to identify the variable needs within each element of the travel chain. For example, the unavailability or low volume of auditory announcements in a stop or station or on the public transport vehicle may be a barrier to people with visual disability who rely on hearing the information. Consequently, this could provoke negative emotions and unpleasant experiences, which may not be the case for people with physical disabilities. The primary objective was to describe the barriers and facilitators to using public transport experienced by people with disabilities (PWD). The secondary aim was to explore experiences in terms of self-efficacy and satisfaction, when using public transport among people with disabilities. A scoping review was conducted. The search was performed in MEDLINE, TRANSPORT DATABASE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and WEB OF SCIENCE from 1995 to 2023. Of 6,820 citations identified, 34 articles were included in the review for extraction. The main physical and social barriers included lack of ramp, long walking distance, long waiting time, unavailability of information at bus stop or station, and drivers' negative attitudes towards PWD. Personal factors that prevented the use of public transport included lack of confidence, and decreased satisfaction with public transport use. Strategies such as providing ramps on public transport vehicles, availability of kneeling buses and courtesy of bus drivers, and travel training were considered as enablers to the use of public transport that can lead the improved self-efficacy and satisfaction. In conclusion, this review identified the physical and social barriers and facilitators in travel chain, and highlighted issues related to lack of confidence or self-efficacy and decreased satisfaction when PWD and older adults are using public transport. Identifying and understanding the barriers and facilitators to the use of public transport by PWD is a milestone that may help policy makers and transport operators around the world to develop and implement interventions enabling access, use and inclusion of this mode of transport, as the experiences of PWD when using this mode of transport have an impact on their well-being.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".