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

References

• Foucault M. The history of madness. London: Routledge; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Nagi SZ. Disability concepts revisited: implications for prevention. In Pope AM, Tarlov AR, Alvin R, editors. Disability in America: toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991. p. 362.
   Google Scholar
• Drum CE. Chapter 3 models and approaches to disability. Disability and public health. Washington (DC): American Public Health Association; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. International classification of functioning, disability, and health; 2001. Available from: https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Okoro CA, Hollis NTD, Cyrus AC, et al. Prevalence of disabilities and health care access by disability status and type among adults — United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(32):882–887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Government. Family Resources Survey 2015/16. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Bureau of Statistics. Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings. Notes; 2016, p. 40..
   Google Scholar
• Hamraie A. Building access: universal design and the politics of disability. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan RE, Fregly BJ, Boninger ML, et al. Recent trends in assistive technology for mobility. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2012;9(1):20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humphrey JC. Researching disability politics, or, some problems with the social model in practice. Disabil Soc. 2000;15(1):63–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iezzoni LI, Freedman VA. Turning the disability tide: the importance of definitions. JAMA. 2008;299(3):332–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tregaskis C. Social model theory: the story so far. Disabil Soc. 2002;17(4):457–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Design Council UK. The value of public spaces. London; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona M. Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Des Int. 2019;24(1):47–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin A. Collective culture and urban public space. City. 2008;12(1):5–24.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey D. The political economy of public space. In Low SM, Smith N, editors. Polit public Sp. New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Cho IS, Heng CK, Trivic Z. Re-Framing urban space. Re-Framing urban Sp. London: Routledge; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Gehl J. Life between buildings: using public space. Washington (DC): Island Press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs J. The death and life of great American cities. New York (NY): Modern Library; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Oldenburg R. The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Boston (MA): Da Capo Press; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Null R. Universal design: principles and models. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser N. Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Soc Text. 1990;(25/26):56–80.
   Google Scholar
• Romice O, Thwaites K, Porta S, et al. Urban design and quality of life. In: Fleury-Bahi G, Pol E, Navarro O, editors. Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research (international handbooks of quality-of-life). Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 241–273.
   Google Scholar
• Schalock RL, Verdugo MA, Alonso MV, et al. Handbook on quality of life for human service practitioners. Silver Spring (MD): American Association on Mental Retardation; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Measuring quality of life – WHOQOL. Geneva; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Pineo H, Zimmermann N, Cosgrave E, et al. Promoting a healthy cities agenda through indicators: development of a global urban environment and health index. Cities Heal. 2018;2(1):27–45.
   Google Scholar
• Grant M, Brown C, Caiaffa WT, et al. Cities and health: an evolving global conversation. Cities Heal. 2017;1(1):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Pheasant S. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers Y, Sharp H, Preece J. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Chichester, W. Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. Universal declaration of human rights. Paris; 1948.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Unsworth C, So MH, Chua J, et al. A systematic review of public transport accessibility for people using mobility devices. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;0:1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Welage N, Liu KPY. Wheelchair accessibility of public buildings: a review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang G, Poulsen DV, Lygum VL, et al. Health-promoting nature access for people with mobility impairments: a systematic review. IJERPH. 2017;14:(7):703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper RA, Teodorski EE, Sporner ML, et al. Manual wheelchair propulsion over cross-sloped surfaces: a literature review. Assist Technol. 2011;23(1):42–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atoyebi OA, Labbé D, Prescott M, et al. Mobility challenges among older adult mobility device users. Curr Geri Rep. 2019;8(3):223–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigonnesse C, Mahmood A, Chaudhury H, et al. The role of neighborhood physical environment on mobility and social participation among people using mobility assistive technology. Disabil Soc. 2018;33(6):866–893.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. New York (NY): Wiley; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Justice. American with disabilities act accessibility guidelines. USA; 2010. p. 279.
   Google Scholar
• Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34:1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
• D'Souza C, Paquet VL, Lenker JA, et al. Self-reported difficulty and preferences of wheeled mobility device users for simulated low-floor bus boarding, interior circulation and disembarking. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(2):109–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alagappan V, Hefferan A, Parivallal A. Exploring accessibility issues of a public building for the mobility impaired. Case Study: Interstate Bus Terminal (ISBT), Vijayawada, India*. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(3):271–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farzana F. Accessibility of public buildings in Khulna, Bangladesh, for wheelchair users. DCID. 2019;29(4):83–97.
   Google Scholar
• Edlich RF, Kelley AR, Morton K, et al. A case report of a severe musculoskeletal injury in a wheelchair user caused by an incorrect wheelchair ramp design. J Emerg Med. 2010;38(2):150–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman S, Sherman J. Design professionals and the built environment: encountering boundaries 20 years after the Americans with disabilities act. Disabil Soc. 2012;27(1):51–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazumdar S, Geis G. Architects, the law, and accessibility: Architect’s approaches to the ADA in arenas. J Archit Plann Res. 2003;20:199–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Government. Equality Act 2010; 2010. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.
   Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E, Maisel J, Feathers D, et al. Anthropometry and standards for wheeled mobility: an international comparison. Assist Technol. 2010;22(1):51–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Souza C, Steinfeld E, Paquet V. Functional reach for wheeled mobility device users: a comparison with ADA-ABA guidelines for accessibility. Rehabil Eng Soc North Am Annu Conf. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Burton E, Mitchell L. Inclusive urban design: streets for life. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Liebermann WK. Teaching embodiment: disability, subjectivity, and architectural education. J Archit. 2019;24(6):803–828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastiaanssen J, Johnson D, Lucas K. Does transport help people to gain employment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Transp Rev. 2020;40(5):607–628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Geneidy A, Buliung R, Diab E, et al. Non-stop equity: assessing daily intersections between transit accessibility and social disparity across the greater Toronto and Hamilton area (GTHA). Environ Plann B Plann Des. 2016;43(3):540–560.
   Google Scholar
• Dari S, Jandra M, Huda M, et al. Inequalities in access of learning in primary school: voices from children with special needs. IJPR. 2020;24(1):356–365.
   Google Scholar
• Grisé E, Boisjoly G, Maguire M, et al. Elevating access: comparing accessibility to jobs by public transport for individuals with and without a physical disability. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2019;125:280–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards C, Imrie R. Disability and bodies as bearers of value. Sociology. 2003;37(2):239–256.
   Google Scholar
• Buckup S. The price of exclusion: the economic consequences of excluding people with disabilities from the world of work; 2009. [cited 2020 Nov 8]. Report No.: 43. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Publications/working-papers/WCMS_119305/lang–en/index.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Iezzoni LI, Wint AJ, Smeltzer SC, et al. Physical accessibility of routine prenatal care for women with mobility disability. J Womens Health. 2015;24(12):1006–1012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards DJ, Sakellariou D, Anstey S. Barriers to, and facilitators of, access to cancer services and experiences of cancer care for adults with a physical disability: a mixed methods systematic review. Disabil Health J. 2020;13(1):100844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. World Report on Disability. 2011. Available from: https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Finkelstein, V. Disability: A Social Challenge or an Administrative Responsibility. In: Disabling barriers–enabling environments. London; Newbury Park: Open University: SAGE Publications; 1993, p. 34–43.
   Google Scholar
• Goldsmith S. Designing for the disabled: the new paradigm. In: Designing for the disabled: the new paradigm. London: Routledge; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Fox M, Kemp M. Interactive architecture. New York (NY): Princeton Architectural Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Hertzberger H. Lessons for students in architecture. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers/Publishers; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Imrie R. Oppression, disability and access in the built environment. In: Shakespeare T, editor. Disabil read. London: Continuum; 2000. p. 129.
   Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E, Maisel J, editors. Universal design: creating inclusive environments. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Schnädelbach H. Adaptive architecture. Interactions. 2016;23(2):62–65.
   Google Scholar
• Yiannoudes S. Architecture and adaptation. London: Routledge; 2016.
   Google Scholar