Social and attitudinal barriers to the provision of accessible housing in Canada: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Housing is a critical social determinant of health and for individuals with accessibility needs, having a roof over one's head is not enough. For people requiring accessibility features to enter and exit their home, use the bathroom, or prepare meals, the absence of these features can limit social participation, increase reliance on caregivers, and negatively impact health, dignity, and safety. OBJECTIVE: This article presents a qualitative study with members from diverse key interest groups across the housing, disability, healthcare, and policy sectors to identify social and attitudinal barriers limiting accessible housing and home modifications options in Canada. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and a demographic survey were conducted with 59 people. Participants included people with lived experience of disabilities and other end-users of accssible housing (i.e., family caregivers and people from the Deaf community), as well as cross-sectoral professionals with expertise in accessible housing. Inductive codebook thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Four prevailing themes were identified from the data, including a lack of prioritization by policy makers and housing developers, cost-benefit appraisals of including accessibility features, discriminatory attitudes towards the aesthetics of accessibility and towards end-users, and underestimating of the need for preventative accessibility. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudinal barriers are contributing to a lack of prioritization of accessibility in housing in Canada. To create a more inclusive housing landscape and improve public health, investments in accessible housing, policy advancement, and new regulatory measures are recommended.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".