Obstacles and facilitators to access to paratransit for people with disabilities: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paratransit represents an essential mobility solution for people with disabilities as it enables them to participate in society. However, problems have arisen affecting access to paratransit services, leading to frustration, stress and insecurity among some users. These findings suggest that paratransit services face certain issues. The purpose of this study is to explore the obstacles and facilitators to access to paratransit for people with disabilities. A scoping review was conducted. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsychINFO and Transport Database were consulted in November 2023. Two reviewers independently examined the studies identified by the database searches, then extracted data from the articles retained. The identified obstacles and facilitators were associated with the five dimensions of access: availability, accessibility, affordability, usability and acceptability. At the end of the selection process, 19 articles were retained. The facilitators most often mentioned included employee politeness and assistance and service reliability, particularly in terms of punctuality and safety. On the other hand, long wait times and delays were among the most common obstacles, along with inflexibility and cumbersome administrative processes. This study identifies several obstacles and facilitators to access to paratransit by people with disabilities. However, it provides few concrete solutions for optimizing services. Thought must be given to defining possible avenues for improvement. • Facilitators of PWDs’ paratransit access include drivers’ help and reliable service. • Long waits, inflexibility, and complex administrative processes were key obstacles. • Findings provide few concrete solutions for optimizing paratransit services. • Thought must be given to defining possible avenues for improvement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".