Disabled-by-design: effects of inaccessible urban public spaces on users of mobility assistive devices – a systematic review

Figures & data

Table 1. Construction of the search query used for retrieving relevant literature.

Searched terms lists
MobAD users	QoL aspects	Physical elements
"Mobility device*"	Access*	Pathway*	Built
Wheelchair*	"Quality of life"	Footpath*	Architecture*
Scooter*	Health	Sidewalk*	Environmental
"Walking frame*"	Well-being	Pavement*	"Public space*"
"Walking stick*"	Safety	"Street furniture"	"Open space*"
Rollator*	"Daily activities"	"Ground surface*"	"Public building*"
"Walking cane*"	"Daily tasks"	"Walking surface*"	"Green space*"
Crutches	Comfort	"Curb ramp*"	Square*
Pushchair*	Fatigue	"Curb cut*"	Plaza*
Stroller*	Pain	Entrance*	Park*
"Mobility impair*"	Psychological	Door*	Water*
"Mobility disab*"	Psychosocial	Transport*	Library*
"Wheeled device*"	"Self-esteem"	"Bus (transport* or platform*)"	School*
"Mobility assistive device*"	Emotional	"Train (transport* or platform*)"	University*
	"Bodily image"	"Tram (transport* or platform*)"	Cinema*
	Independence	parking	Shop*
	Transport	"Emergency exit*"	Retail
	Transfer	"Evacuation point*"	Museum*
	Manoeuvrability	"Ground surface*"	Store*
	Mobility	"Floor surface*"	Restaurant*
	"Reach range"	Corridor*	Market*
	"Reach *abilit*"	Aisle*	Church*
	Grip	Ramp*	Mosque*
	Force	"Platform lift*"	Café*
	"Vision range"	Elevator*	Playground*
	Participation	Stair*	Stadia*
	Recreation*	Step*	Theatre*/theatre*
	Leisure	Handrail*	Fitness
	Spirituality	"Dining surface*"	Urban
	Religion	"Work surface*"	City*
	Education*	"Service surface*"
	"Social relations*"	Counter*
		Shelf/shelves

Explanations: Double quotation marks were used to search for a loose phrase. An asterisk was used to retrieve variable endings of a root word.

Figure 1. Flowchart of study selection and eligibility criteria.

Presents a flowchart, which describes the article selection process. We initially searched three databases and discovered 3980 publications. We screened those based on their title and excluded 3044 articles due to certain criteria. We then ran an abstract-based screening and excluded another 852 articles as irrelevant. We scrutinised the full text of the remaining articles and omitted 42 as irrelevant. After a forward-backward citation search, another 7 articles were added. Another 4 were excluded due to the application of the methodological quality assessment criteria. The final number of included articles was 48.

Table 2. The coding scheme used in this review.

Classes of information	Codes
Article characteristics	Authors
	Year of publication
	Country
	Methodological approach
	Study design (e.g., descriptive, explanatory)
	Data collection techniques (e.g., survey, lab trial) & Sample size
	Data analysis techniques (e.g., quantitative, qualitative)
	Quality of evidence
	Study limitations (e.g., existence of confounders)
	MMAT rating (e.g., 80% criteria met)
Objective-related insights	Purpose
	Thematic focus (e.g., physical accessibility, impact on QoL)
	Types of MobAD examined (e.g., manual wheelchairs, canes)
	Main findings
	Types of public spaces examined (e.g., street infrastructure)
	Types of physical elements examined (e.g., curb ramps, pathways)
	Impacted QoL domains (e.g., pain and discomfort, body fit)

Table 3. Analysis of general characteristics and methodology of the reviewed content.

Publication details	Purpose & type of MobAD examined	Study design	Key findings
		Data analysis & collection methods; Sample size
		MMAT rating; Limitations
Abu Tariah et al. [42]; Saudi Arabia	To explore wheelchair accessibility of mosques in Riyadh from the perspective of users.	Descriptive	Mosques were inaccessible for wheelchair users. This impacted their spiritual condition.
		QUANT., Social survey; N = 48
		80%; sample representativeness
Aldersey et al. [43]; Bangladesh	To explore barriers and facilitators for wheelchair users.	Exploratory	Participants mentioned a few barriers in public spaces (pathways, ramps, bus stops) that affected them diversely.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 20
		80%; inefficient data collection methods
Alm et al. [44]; Sweden	To document the prevalence of shoulder pain, interference in activities of manual wheelchair users.	Descriptive	The highest median intensity of shoulder pain was reported for pushing the wheelchair up ramps or inclines outdoors.
		QUANT., Social survey; N = 88
		60%; sampling strategy, sample representativeness
Bennett et al. [45]; Canada	To determine how much curb ramps in an urban area met a set of accessibility guidelines.	Descriptive	Only a small proportion of the studied curb ramps met all the accessibility guidelines. This may impact users’ navigation.
		QUANT., Spatial survey; N = 79
		60%; sample representativeness, sampling strategy
Bentzen et al. [46]; USA	To explore effects of tactile walking indicators on users of wheelchairs, rollators, canes, and crutches.	Descriptive	Crossing either orientation of tactile indicators caused some increase in effort and instability for more than half of participants.
		MIXED, Observation & Social survey; N = 38
		100%
Bromley et al. [47]; United Kingdom	To explore the experiences of wheelchair shoppers in city centres.	Explanatory	Aisles, shelves, counters, and sidewalks made shopping a frightful experience for wheelchair users.
		MIXED, Social survey & interviews; N = 120
		80%; sample representativeness
Carlsson & Lundalv [48]; Sweden	To extract and analyse national power wheelchair-related accident and injury data.	Descriptive	The reason for many of the single accidents and injuries was a difference in ground level (34%, typically a curb).
		QUANT., Official records analysis; N = 301
		80%; sampling strategy limitations
Chen et al. [49]; Taiwan	To report wheelchair-related accidents characteristics.	Descriptive	Accidents frequently were caused by narrow pathway passages and uneven surfaces.
		QUANT., Interviews; N = 95
		60%; sample representativeness, confounders
Chiwandire & Vincent [50]; South Africa	To describe and assess accessibility measures in South African universities.	Exploratory	Challenges with promoting higher education accessibility for wheelchair users include badly designed toilets, libraries, and transport facilities.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 13
		80%; inadequate data collection
Cooper et al. [51]; USA	To identify and evaluate cross-slope surface characteristics that impact manual wheelchair mobility.	Descriptive	Severe cross-slope angles could make it challenging for manual wheelchair users to safely and independently traverse sidewalks.
		QUANT., Social survey; N = 107
		80%; survey measurements
Corazon et al. [52]; Denmark	To explore the experiences of users of wheelchair, scooters, canes, and crutches when using green spaces.	Exploratory	Lack of access – due to uneven surfaces, slopes, inadequate ramps, and poor parking spaces – led to feelings of exclusion and outsideness.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 25
		100%
Daamen et al. [53]; Netherlands	To assess the gap between public transport vehicles and platforms as a barrier for wheelchairs, rollators, scooters, and canes.	Descriptive	The 10 cm × 10 cm gap constituted a serious problem for more than half of the participants. Access for nearly all requires a gap size no larger than 5 cm × 2 cm.
		QUANT., Observation; N = 165
		100%
Dolbow & Figoni [54]; USA	To determine for fitness centres the level of compliance with ADA.	Descriptive	All surveyed facilities were found to be partially compliant, with none of the facilities being 100% compliant. Service surfaces, confined spaces, and doors were least compliant.
		QUANT., Spatial survey; N = 10
		60%; sample representativeness, inadequate analysis
Dutta et al. [55]; Canada	To determine space needed for powered mobility scooters to manoeuvre indoors.	Explanatory	None of the scooters tested could complete all manoeuvres within the confined space limits allowed by existing standards.
		QUANT., Lab trials; N = 1
		80%; sample representativeness
Duvall et al. [56]; USA	To develop a guideline for public pathways and sidewalks for users of wheelchairs.	Explanatory	Surfaces with wide and frequent cracks subjected wheelchair users to harmful whole-body vibrations and were uncomfortable for users of wheelchairs.
		MIXED, Observation & survey; N = 61
		100%
Evcil [57]; Turkey	To evaluate wheelchair users’ participation in recreation activities in a heritage site.	Descriptive	There are significant physical obstacles that hamper access to leisure activities, such as pathway characteristics, absence of ramps, existence of stairs, and problematic entrances.
		QUANT., Social survey; N = 125
		80%; weak sampling strategy
Evcil [58]; Turkey	To determine the compliance of public buildings to wheelchair accessibility guidelines.	Descriptive	Ramps, doors, parking spaces and sidewalks were the found to be the most problematic elements.
		QUANT., Spatial survey; N = 26
		60%; sample representativeness, sampling strategy
Frost & Bertocci [59]; USA	To characterise wheelchair & scooter adverse incidents on transit vehicles.	Descriptive	Wheeled mobility devices users have a greater chance of incurring injury during ingress/egress on boarding ramps.
		QUANT., Official records analysis; N = 115
		80%; non-response bias
Frost et al. [60]; USA	To solicit feedback on boarding ramp related incidents and difficulties from wheelchair & scooter users.	Descriptive	Steep ramp slope was the primary contributing factor to most incidents. Users questioned ramps accessibility.
		MIXED, Social survey; N = 384
		80%; non-response bias
Gamache et al. [61]; Canada	To objectively describe environmental obstacles encountered by wheelchair, scooter, crutches, and canes users.	Descriptive	Access ramps and washrooms should be considered for improvement.
		MIXED, Spatial survey & Interviews; N1 = 20, N2 = 10–15
		80%; sampling strategy
Grange-Faivre et al. [62]; France	To determine the maximum gap between transport vehicle & platform for wheelchairs & canes users.	Descriptive	Nearly half the manual wheelchair users failed the gaps of 50 mm × 50 mm and larger.
		QUANT., Observation; N = 46
		80%; existence of non-accounted confounders
Henje et al. [63]; Sweden	To identify obstacles and risks for power-wheelchair users by exploring their behaviour and experiences in traffic environments.	Exploratory	Uneven and non-uniform pathways are major obstacles and causes of accidents for users of powered mobility devices.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 15
		60%; sampling strategy, sample representativeness
Holliday et al. [64]; Canada	To determine power wheelchair manoeuvrability factors for reach range in confined space.	Exploratory	Power wheelchairs users would not achieve maximum reach capability within the space width allowed by existing standards.
		MIXED, Social survey & Lab trials; N1 = 123, N2 = 1
		60%; sample representativeness, sampling strategy
Hurd et al. [65]; USA	To evaluate manual wheelchair propulsion across level ground conditions.	Explanatory	Carpet flooring and aggregate concrete were found to be the most physically-demanding for indoor and outdoor use, respectively.
		QUANT., Observation; N = 14
		60%; inappropriate measurements, confounders
Jang et al. [66]; Canada	To explore everyday experiences of scooter users as they navigate outdoors.	Exploratory	Common barrier locations included existence of steps, uneven sidewalk surfaces, and doors.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 20
		80%; data collection methods
Khalili et al. [67]; Canada	To evaluate how personal, environmental, and device-related factors impact the perceived autonomy of users of wheelchairs & scooters.	Descriptive	Manoeuvrability on uneven/rough terrains and at confined spaces vastly impacted autonomy of MobAD users.
		QUANT., Social survey; N = 123
		80%; sample representativeness
Kim et al. [68]; Korea Republic	To understand the effects of ramp slope and height on wheelchair users' propulsion force.	Explanatory	Accessibility of the ramp decreased as the slope increased, and accessibility difference between slopes increased as the height increased.
		QUANT., Lab trials; N = 30
		80%; sample representativeness
Koontz et al. [69]; USA	To identify facilitators and barriers to wheelchair & scooters transfers in the community.	Descriptive	Wheeled mobility device users had limited transferability with respect to wrongly-located grab-bars and facility surfaces, confined spaces, and toilets.
		QUANT., Social survey; N = 112
		80%; sample representativeness
Koontz et al. [70]; USA	To determine minimum space required for 4 different types of turns for wheelchair & scooters.	Explanatory	Between 10% and 100% of users would not be able to manoeuvre in spaces that meet current Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities specifications.
		QUANT., Lab trials; N = 213
		80%; sample representativeness
Labbé et al. [71]; Canada	To explore the experiences of older adult powered wheelchair users.	Exploratory	Participants mostly identified issues with entrances and toilets in stores, restaurants and public buildings, and the inadequate conditions of the sidewalks.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 19
		80%; data collection methods
Lee et al. [72]; USA	To identify environmental and personal barriers to healthy eating among people with mobility impairments*.	Descriptive	Reaching high or deep store shelves, high tills or check-out surfaces, as well as narrow aisles in convenience stores are access barriers for MobAD users.
		MIXED, Social survey; N = 112
		60%; sample representativeness, sampling strategy
Lenker et al. [73]; USA	To assess the usability of ramp slope for wheelchairs & canes users.	Explanatory	The 1:4 slope was too steep. The 1:6 slope was also considered challenging, in terms of safety and fatigue.
		MIXED, Lab trials & social survey; N = 27
		60%; sample representativeness, confounders
Leong & Higgins [74]; Singapore	To explore needs of wheelchair-bound young people regarding library services.	Exploratory	The main problem in using libraries was getting through doors. Within the library premises, there were problems relating to stairs, curbs, furniture, shelves, and counters.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 11
		60%; inadequate data collection & findings representation
Lid & Solvang [75]; Norway	To explore accessibility aspects from a user perspective for wheelchairs & crutches.	Exploratory	MobAD users’ access to urban areas was hampered mainly due to sidewalk characteristics, thus hampering their participation in society, and damaging their self-esteem.
		QUAL., Observation; N = 14
		100%
Lindemann et al. [76]; Germany	To develop intelligent wheeled walkers by investigating possible access problems.	Exploratory	Walking downhill and uphill, stairs, and walking outdoors over uneven ground were major problems identified.
		QUAL., Social survey; N = 60
		80%; quantitative measurements lacked consistency
Mafatlane et al. [77]; Botswana	To assess accessibility of supermarkets for manual wheelchair users.	Explanatory	The interior design (aisles, shelves) of the supermarket increased dependency of shoppers who use wheelchairs on activities such as picking items, paying, and reading price tags.
		MIXED, Spatial survey & interviews; N1 = 30, N2 = 6
		80%; sample representativeness
Mojtahedi et al. [78]; USA	To assess the impact of the built environment on access to healthy foods for MobAD users.	Descriptive	MobAD users are at a disadvantage in staying healthy due to physical obstacles in getting healthy foods (e.g., high shelves & counters, narrow aisles, and inaccessible entrances).
		QUANT., Spatial survey; N = 82
		80%; sample representativeness
Owusu-Ansah et al. [79]; Ghana	To study the spatial needs of the mobility impaired within the built environment.	Descriptive	Mobility-impaired people navigated through the built environment with great difficulty. Poorly design parking, uneven surfaces and existence of stairs were big challenges.
		MIXED, Spatial survey & social survey; N = 100
		60%; sample representativeness; sampling strategy
Pierret et al. [80]; France	To quantify strains during manual wheelchair travel on cross slopes.	Explanatory	An 8% cross-slope is subjectively sensitive and impose physiological costs. A 12% cross-slope is unachievable for some users and should therefore be prohibited.
		QUANT., Lab trials; N = 25
		100%
Prescott et al. [81]; Canada	To explore challenges that users of wheelchairs and scooters face navigating unfamiliar pedestrian environments	Exploratory	Uneven and sloped pathway surfaces were key navigational challenges for study participants.
		MIXED, Interviews; N = 14
		80%; sample representativeness
Stafford et al. [82]; Australia	To study neighbourhood experiences of young users of wheelchairs & crutches.	Exploratory	Children who use mobility aids must compromise safety when navigating on sidewalks due to physical barriers such as narrow space and or poorly designed curb ramps.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 12
		100%
Torkia et al. [83]; Canada	To describe power wheelchair driving challenges from a user perspective.	Exploratory	Confined spaces, doorways and uneven sidewalks were indicated as the biggest challenges for navigation and manoeuvrability.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 12
		80%; data collection methods
Toro et al. [84]; USA	To determine physical elements impact on wheelchair users’ transferability.	Explanatory	Transfer surface heights above and below the device seat height, gaps, and obstacles posed serious transfer-related accessibility problems for MobAD users.
		QUANT., Observation; N = 120
		80%; confounder affected design and results
Tripathi et al. [85]; Singapore	To describe pram and stroller injuries and identify possible risk factors.	Descriptive	1 out of 10 patients sustained injuries while the strollers and prams were on escalators and stairs.
		QUANT., Official reports analysis; N = 248
		60%; inadequate measurements & nonresponse bias
Velho [86]; United Kingdom	To explore the barriers faced by wheelchair users in the transit network.	Exploratory	Crowded and confined spaces impacted autonomy of MobAD users. Reliance on transport staff to deploy ramps aggravated this situation.
		QUAL., Interviews; N = 34
		80%; inadequate analysis
Velho et al. [87]; United Kingdom	To research the barriers faced by manual wheelchair users in public transport.	Explanatory	As the gradient of the boarding ramp incline increased, upper limb demand and injury risk increased.
		MIXED, Observation & interviews; N1 = 7, N2 = 21
		60%; sample representativeness, inadequate analysis
Vredenburgh et al. [88]; USA	To evaluate ramp accessibility and perceived effort required for wheelchair users.	Explanatory	For a transit distance up to 6 m (20 ft.), a ramp should not exceed a maximum cross slope of 5% or a maximum running slope of 7%
		MIXED, Observation & survey; N1 = 43, N2 = 27
		100%
Wretstrand et al. [89]; Sweden	To estimate the incidence of wheelchair-seated passenger injuries related to transit systems.	Descriptive	Boarding and alighting were deemed to be the most impactful conditions. Most passengers sustained injuries because of their interaction with boarding ramps.
		MIXED, Official data analysis & interviews; N1 = 159, N2 = 1000
		60%; quantitative measurements lacked reliability

Explanations: “Wheelchairs” refer to both manual and power wheelchairs, unless stated differently. MIXED = Mixed methods, QUAL. = Qualitative, QUANT. = Quantitative. “Evidence quality” level expresses agreement with 5 criteria of MMAT subject to study methodology. *The authors did not specify types of MobAD users surveyed in this study.

Figure 2. Impact of pathway characteristics on QoL aspects of MobAD users.

Illustrates the most significant effects of problematic pathway characteristics on MobAD users. Narrow pathways can induce injurious accidents and navigation challenges. Rough or non-uniform as well as uneven surfaces can cause injurious accidents. Sloped surfaces can increase cardio-respiratory strain. Improper design of curb ramps can jeopardise the safety of MobAD users.

Figure 3. Impact of transport physical infrastructure on QoL aspects of MobAD users.

Illustrates the most significant effects of transport infrastructure on MobAD users. Physical gaps between transport vehicles and transport boarding points impose safety threats on MobAD users. Boarding ramps increase fatigue and physical pain. Inaccessible transport facilities hinder the use of public transport.

Figure 4. Impact of building approach elements on QoL aspects of MobAD users.

Illustrates the most significant effects of building approach environments on MobAD users. Improperly designed ramps increase fatigue and physical pain. Narrow doors have been accused of obstructing access of MobAD users to commercial activities. Manual doors were found to hinder access to information, physical activity, and healthy food.

Figure 5. Impact of indoor facilities on QoL aspects of MobAD users – I.

Illustrates the most significant effects of indoor facilities of buildings on MobAD users. Narrow corridors and aisles were found culpable for limiting MobAD users’ navigation and reach capability. Improperly designed restrooms can bring about secondary health issues.

Figure 6. Impact of indoor facilities on QoL aspects of MobAD users – II.

Illustrates the most significant effects of indoor facilities of buildings on MobAD users. Excessively high or low service surfaces can affect MobAD users’ reach capability. The presence of stairs or escalators can induce injurious accidents and navigation challenges for MobAD users.

Figure 7. Adaptable platform, Stockholm Opera. The image is courtesy of Guldmann Co.

Depicts an adaptable platform that is located at the main entrance of Stockholm Opera House. This adaptable platform can function as both an accessible lift and a flight of steps/stairs to accommodate MobAD users and non-disabled individuals. When used as a lift, the user can control its movement by boarding onto the platform and pressing the side buttons. As the platform reaches the floor level and the MobAD user alights, the lift transforms into a flight of steps that can now accommodate non-disabled individuals.

Abu Tariah H, Ghasham N, Alolayan M, et al. Wheelchair accessibility of mosques in Riyadh. Work. 2018;60(3):385–391.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Aldersey H, Morshedul Quadir M, Akter S, et al. Barriers and facilitators for wheelchair users in Bangladesh: a participatory action research project. DCID. 2018;29(2):24–44.

 Google Scholar

Alm M, Saraste H, Norrbrink C. Shoulder pain in persons with thoracic spinal cord injury: prevalence and characteristics. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(4):277–283.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bennett S, Lee Kirby R, Bennett S, et al. B. Wheelchair accessibility: descriptive survey of curb ramps in an urban area. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(1):17–23.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Bentzen BL, Scott AC, Wall Emerson R, et al. Effect of tactile walking surface indicators on travelers with mobility disabilities. Transp Res Rec. 2020;2674(7):410–419.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bromley RDF, Matthews DL, Thomas CJ. City Centre accessibility for wheelchair users: the consumer perspective and the planning implications. CITIES. 2007;24(3):229–241.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carlsson A, Lundalv J. Acute injuries resulting from accidents involving powered mobility devices (PMDs)-development and outcomes of PMD-related accidents in Sweden. Traffic Inj Prev. 2019;20(5):484–491.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen WY, Jang Y, Wang JD, et al. Wheelchair-related accidents: relationship with wheelchair-using behavior in active community wheelchair users. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(6):892–898.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chiwandire D, Vincent L. Wheelchair users, access and exclusion in South African higher education. African J Disabil. 2017;6:353.

 Google Scholar

Cooper R, Molinero A, Souza A, et al. Effects of cross slopes and varying surface characteristics on the mobility of manual wheelchair users. Assist Technol. 2012;24(2):102–109.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Corazon SS, Gramkow MC, Poulsen DV, et al. I would really like to visit the forest, but it is just too difficult: a qualitative study on mobility disability and green spaces. Scand J Disabil Res. 2019;20(1):1–13.

 Google Scholar

Daamen W, de Boer E, de Kloe R. Assessing the gap between public transport vehicles and platforms as a barrier for the disabled. Transp Res Rec. 2008;2072(1):131–138.

 Google Scholar

Dolbow DR, Figoni SF. Accommodation of wheelchair-reliant individuals by community fitness facilities. Spinal Cord. 2015;53(7):515–519.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dutta T, King EC, Holliday PJ, et al. Design of built environments to accommodate mobility scooter users: Part I. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(1):67–76.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Duvall J, Cooper R, Sinagra E, et al. Development of surface roughness standards for pathways used by wheelchairs. Transp Res Rec. 2013;2387(1):149–156.

 Google Scholar

Evcil AN. Barriers and preferences to leisure activities for wheelchair users in historic places. Tour Geogr. 2018;20(4):698–715.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Evcil AN. Wheelchair accessibility to public buildings in Istanbul. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(2):76–85.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Frost KL, Bertocci G. Retrospective review of adverse incidents involving passengers seated in wheeled mobility devices while traveling in large accessible transit vehicles. Med Eng Phys. 2010;32(3):230–236.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frost KL, Bertocci G, Smalley C. Ramps remain a barrier to safe wheelchair user transit bus ingress/egress. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(6):629–636.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gamache S, Routhier F, Mortenson WB, et al. Objective evaluation of environmental obstacles encountered in two Canadian urban settings by mobility device users. J Access Des All. 2020;10:98–123.

 Google Scholar

Grange-Faivre C, Marin-Lamellet C, Alauzet A. Maximum acceptable gap between urban-guided transport vehicles and platforms for persons with disabilities: the findings of an experimental study conducted to inform policy decisions. Transp Plan Technol. 2017;40(2):167–181.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Henje C, Stenberg G, Lundälv J, et al. Obstacles and risks in the traffic environment for users of powered wheelchairs in Sweden. Accid Anal Prev. 2021;159:106259.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Holliday P, Mihailidis A, Rolfson R, et al. Understanding and measuring powered wheelchair mobility and manoeuvrability. Part I. Reach in confined spaces. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(16):939–949.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hurd WJ, Morrow MMB, Kaufman KR, et al. Influence of varying level terrain on wheelchair propulsion biomechanics. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87(12):984–991.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jang S, Ben MW, Hurd L, et al. Caught in-between: tensions experienced by community mobility scooter users. Disabil Soc. 2019;35(10):1577–1595.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khalili M, Jonathan C, Hocking N, et al. Perception of autonomy among people who use wheeled mobility assistive devices: dependence on environment and contextual factors. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;1–8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim CS, Lee D, Kwon S, et al. Effects of ramp slope, ramp height and users’ pushing force on performance, muscular activity and subjective ratings during wheelchair driving on a ramp. Int J Ind Ergon. 2014;44(5):636–646.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koontz AM, Bass SR, Kulich HR. Accessibility facilitators and barriers affecting independent wheelchair transfers in the community. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;16(7):741–748.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koontz AM, Brindle ED, Kankipati P, et al. Design features that affect the maneuverability of wheelchairs and scooters. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(5):759–764.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Labbé D, Ben MW, Rushton PW, et al. Mobility and participation among ageing powered wheelchair users: using a lifecourse approach. Ageing Soc. 2020;40(3):626–642.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee RE, O’Neal A, Cameron C, et al. Developing content for the food environment assessment survey tool (FEAST): a systematic mixed methods study with people with disabilities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1–14.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lenker J, Damle U, D’Souza C, et al. Usability evaluation of access ramps in transit buses: preliminary findings. JPT. 2016;19(2):109–127.

 Google Scholar

Leong ICB, Higgins SE. Public library services for wheelchair-bound young people in Singapore. Public Libr Q. 2010;29(3):210–229.

 Google Scholar

Lid IM, Solvang PK. (Dis)ability and the experience of accessibility in the urban environment. Alter. 2016;10(2):181–194.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lindemann U, Schwenk M, Klenk J, et al. Problems of older persons using a wheeled walker. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28:215–220.

 Google Scholar

Mafatlane GR, Fidzani LC, Gobotswang KSM. Wheelchair users as consumers: accessibility of supermarkets in Gaborone, Botswana. Int J Consum Stud. 2015;39(2):94–100.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mojtahedi MC, Boblick P, Rimmer JH, et al. Environmental barriers to and availability of healthy foods for people with mobility disabilities living in urban and suburban neighborhoods. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(11):2174–2179.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Owusu-Ansah JK, Baisie A, Oduro-Ofori E. The mobility impaired and the built environment in Kumasi: structural obstacles and individual experiences. GeoJournal. 2019;84(4):1003–1020.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pierret B, Desbrosses K, Paysant J, et al. Cardio-respiratory and subjective strains sustained by paraplegic subjects, when travelling on a cross slope in a manual wheelchair (MWC). Appl Ergon. 2014;45(4):1056–1062.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prescott M, Miller WC, Borisoff J, et al. An exploration of the navigational behaviours of people who use wheeled mobility devices in unfamiliar pedestrian environments. J Transp Heal. 2021;20:100975.

 Google Scholar

Stafford L, Adkins B, Franz J. Bounded at the driveway’s edge: body-space tensions encountered by children with mobility impairments in moving about the neighbourhood street. Child Geogr. 2019;18(3):298–311.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Torkia C, Reid D, Korner-Bitensky N, et al. Power wheelchair driving challenges in the community: a users’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(3):211–215.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Toro ML, Koontz AM, Cooper RA. The impact of transfer setup on the performance of independent wheelchair transfers. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc. 2013;55:567–580.

 Google Scholar

Tripathi M, Tyebally A, Feng JXY, et al. A review of stroller-related and pram-related injuries to children in Singapore. Inj Prev. 2017;23(1):60–63.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Velho R. Transport accessibility for wheelchair users: a qualitative analysis of inclusion and health. Int J Transp Sci Technol. 2019;8(2):103–115.

 Google Scholar

Velho R, Holloway C, Symonds A, et al. The effect of transport accessibility on the social inclusion of wheelchair users: a mixed method analysis. SI. 2016;4(3):24–35.

 Google Scholar

Vredenburgh AG, Hedge A, Zackowitz IB, et al. Evaluation of wheelchair users’ perceived sidewalk and ramp slope: effort and accessibility. J Archit Plann Res. 2009;26:145–158.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wretstrand A, Bylund P-O, Petzäll J, et al. Injuries in special transport services—situations and risk levels involving wheelchair users. Med Eng Phys. 2010;32(3):248–253.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar