Exploratory study on the adaptation of online services offered to people with disabilities, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many community organizations offering services to people with disabilities (PWD) changed their service delivery, switching from in-person to remote services. However, little is known about what it was like for organizations to quickly pivot their service delivery. The study explored barriers and facilitators to access community services for PWD and identified potential improvements to these services. METHODS: The study used a mixed method, multiple case study design, which included a convenience sample of 27 participants recruited from four community organizations delivering services to PWD. Participating staff and members participated in six different focus groups and completed a questionnaire about their level of satisfaction regarding the evolution of the services. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on the focus group data and the data from the questionnaires were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: The thematic analyses revealed four themes: "Succeeding in adapting the interventions to continue providing services", "Enjoying a lot of new things about the new online modality", "Key elements that have facilitated the transition" and "Facing some difficulties implementing online services". The median satisfaction score demonstrated that the participants were satisfied with the services. The success of these organizational changes relied on the adoption of new methods and approaches to service delivery. CONCLUSION: Through this study, barriers and facilitators that the organizations and their beneficiaries have experienced during the pandemic were identified as well as suggestions for improvement. The organizations consider maintaining online services beyond the pandemic to offer PWD easier access to community services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".