Disability and health journal · 2019
Effectiveness of the International Symbol of Access and inclusivity of other disability groups.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vice Jason, Barstow Beth A, Bowman Sean, Mehta Tapan, Padalabalanarayanan Sangeetha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The International Symbol of Access (ISA) is recognized world-wide for designating and identifying areas which are wheelchair accessible, however its meaning has evolved to include both restricted use and universal accessibility.
OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to investigate the effectiveness of the ISA in representing individuals of all impairment types.
METHODS: A mixed-method survey was disseminated in the U.S. and internationally to persons without self-identified impairment and individuals of various impairment group types, including mobility, vision, hearing, and cognitive impairments, using convenience sampling (n = 981). Quantitative data was analyzed using ranking patterns and regression analysis. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis and triangulation.
RESULTS: Participants with self-identified mobility impairments rated the ISA more favorably than other disability groups (p = 0.002). In addition, there is a significant correlation between age and effectiveness of the ISA, with participants rating the symbol more favorably as age increases. Common themes included association of the ISA with a mobility impairment, implications for restricted use or reserved space, and physical accessibility.
CONCLUSIONS: The ISA is not effective in representing individuals with non-mobility impairments and its ambiguous nature leads to confusion for both persons with and without impairment.
OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to investigate the effectiveness of the ISA in representing individuals of all impairment types.
METHODS: A mixed-method survey was disseminated in the U.S. and internationally to persons without self-identified impairment and individuals of various impairment group types, including mobility, vision, hearing, and cognitive impairments, using convenience sampling (n = 981). Quantitative data was analyzed using ranking patterns and regression analysis. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis and triangulation.
RESULTS: Participants with self-identified mobility impairments rated the ISA more favorably than other disability groups (p = 0.002). In addition, there is a significant correlation between age and effectiveness of the ISA, with participants rating the symbol more favorably as age increases. Common themes included association of the ISA with a mobility impairment, implications for restricted use or reserved space, and physical accessibility.
CONCLUSIONS: The ISA is not effective in representing individuals with non-mobility impairments and its ambiguous nature leads to confusion for both persons with and without impairment.