IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v55y2002i8p1435-1446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: sbstantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects

Author

Listed:
  • Meyers, Allan R.
  • Anderson, Jennifer J.
  • Miller, Donald R.
  • Shipp, Kathy
  • Hoenig, Helen

Abstract

We undertook a month-long intensive pilot study of a sample of adult wheelchair-users in Boston, Massachusetts and Durham, North Carolina, USA. The study had four objectives; to: (1) measure experiences of reaching and failing to reach specific destinations; (2) measure encounters with environmental facilitators and barriers, including both those overcome and not overcome; (3) determine the frequencies of destinations, facilitators, and barriers, and (4) test for consistency between daily reports and retrospective reports. Full participation entailed baseline and exit telephone interviews, and 28 daily telephone contacts. Participants reported reaching a wide range of destinations, most notably, banks, stores and shops, friends' and relatives' homes and health professionals' offices. There was a smaller range of destinations that they could not reach, despite trying; most notably, religious buildings, friends' and relatives' homes and work-places. They encountered an array of barriers, some of which they were able to overcome and others they could not overcome. Reported barriers included personal, interpersonal, and environmental barriers. The 25 subjects completing the study reported a wide range of human, environmental, and technologic support. In general, the consistency among daily, baseline, and exit interviews was high. This study has both substantive and methodologic implications. It suggests that efforts to facilitate social participation by wheelchair-users should focus not only on the built environment, but also on interventions in personal assistance and assistive technology, health promotion and fitness, and programs that improve civility. Methodologically, the data suggest that it is possible to make reliable measures of environmental encounters without the administrative and respondent burden associated with daily interviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Meyers, Allan R. & Anderson, Jennifer J. & Miller, Donald R. & Shipp, Kathy & Hoenig, Helen, 2002. "Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: sbstantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(8), pages 1435-1446, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:8:p:1435-1446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00269-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu-Sheng Yang & Alicia M. Koontz & Yu-Hsuan Hsiao & Cheng-Tang Pan & Jyh-Jong Chang, 2021. "Assessment of Wheelchair Propulsion Performance in an Immersive Virtual Reality Simulator," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Aarhaug, Jørgen & Elvebakk, Beate, 2015. "The impact of Universally accessible public transport–a before and after study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 143-150.
    3. Dogan Kumtepe, Elvan & Çorbacıoğlu, Eda & Başoğlu, Ahmet Nuri & Daim, Tugrul Unsal & Shaygan, Amir, 2021. "Design based exploration of medical system adoption: Case of wheelchair ramps," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Darcy, Simon & Burke, Paul Francis, 2018. "On the road again: The barriers and benefits of automobility for people with disability," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 229-245.
    5. Kristin Ystmark Bjerkan & Liv Rakel Øvstedal, 2020. "Functional requirements for inclusive transport," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1177-1198, June.
    6. Cheng Chia-Hsin, 2020. "The Satisfaction Study of People with Disabilities Regarding the Restaurant with Barrier-Free Environment in Taiwan Tourism Area," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(4), pages 1-1, April.
    7. David S. Vale & Fernando Ascensão & Nuno Raposo & António Pedro Figueiredo, 2017. "Comparing access for all: disability-induced accessibility disparity in Lisbon," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 43-64, January.
    8. Levine, Kaylyn & Karner, Alex, 2023. "Approaching accessibility: Four opportunities to address the needs of disabled people in transportation planning in the United States," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 66-74.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:8:p:1435-1446. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.