Objective evaluation of architectural obstacles encountered in two Canadian urban settings by mobility device users

Individuals using ambulation or wheeled assistive technologies encounter obstacles when accessing built environments. Although there are many environmental evaluations allowing the identification of these obstacles, very few take into consideration both outdoor and indoor environments. Since we know little about the environments of individuals with mobility impairments regarding their mobility assistive technologies (MAT) and mobility in general, the aim of the project was to objectively describe environmental obstacles encountered by mobility device users in two Canadian urban settings. Locations to be evaluated were nominated by community dwelling MAT users during focus groups in Quebec City (n=25 participants) and community forums in the Vancouver region (n=30-45). The measure of environmental accessibility (MEA) was used to evaluate the outdoor and indoor identified barriers. Relevant MEA sections were completed based on problems that were noted by MAT users, and non-compliant items were recorded. Nineteen locations (buildings and exterior spaces) in Quebec City and 20 in the Vancouver region were evaluated. Fifteen MEA sections were used in Quebec City and 12 in the Vancouver region (out of 29): curb ramps; sidewalk; parking; outdoor signage; doors; accessible routes; walls; obstacles; access ramps; handrails and guardrails; elevators; equipment (automatic teller machine); locker rooms; toilet, changing and shower stalls; and washrooms. Non-compliant items were similar in Quebec City and the Vancouver region. The most frequently encountered ones were similar in both locations. The most problematic MEA sections (with more non-compliant items) were access ramps and washrooms. This study provides a better understanding of the objective characteristics of outdoor and indoor environments impeding access among mobility device users, and consequently, the elements which should be considered for improvement.

[1]  Kerri A Morgan,et al.  Development of a measure of receptivity of the physical environment , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation.

[2]  Peter Aspinall,et al.  Development of the Scottish Walkability Assessment Tool (SWAT). , 2009, Health & place.

[3]  Ryan Fomiatti,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Impact of Powered Mobility Devices on Older Adults’ Activity Engagement , 2013 .

[4]  B. E. Maki,et al.  Assistive devices for balance and mobility: benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[5]  Linda McClain,et al.  Wheelchair Accessibility—Living the Experience: Function in the Community , 1998 .

[6]  Kjersti Vik,et al.  The ups and downs of social participation: experiences of wheelchair users in Norway , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation.

[7]  E. Porter,et al.  Intentions of Older Homebound Women About Maintaining Proximity to a Cane or Walker and Using It at Home , 2011 .

[8]  Cathy Bodine,et al.  Environmental barriers and supports to the health, function, and participation of people with developmental and intellectual disabilities: report from the State of the Science in Aging with Developmental Disabilities Conference. , 2008, Disability and health journal.

[9]  Larissa Nascimento dos Santos,et al.  Ergonomics and accessibility for people with visual impairment in hotels , 2012 .

[10]  François Routhier,et al.  Walking Aid Use in Canada: Prevalence and Demographic Characteristics Among Community‐Dwelling Users , 2018, Physical therapy.

[11]  Å. Brandt,et al.  Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: a systematic review. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[12]  A. Quanbury,et al.  Experiences with Using a Pushrim-Activated Power-Assisted Wheelchair for Community-Based Occupations: A Qualitative Exploration , 2011, Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie.

[13]  S. Nesathurai,et al.  A pilot study of functional access to public buildings and facilities for persons with impairments , 2004, Disability and rehabilitation.

[14]  M. Laplante,et al.  MOBILITY DEVICE USE IN THE UNITED STATES: DISABILITY STATISTICS REPORT , 2000 .

[15]  Å. Brandt,et al.  Older people's use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation. , 2004, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[16]  Jennifer A Ailshire,et al.  Participation among adults with disability: the role of the urban environment. , 2011, Social science & medicine.

[17]  Acsw John T. Pardeck.  Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , 1997 .

[18]  W Ben Mortenson,et al.  Prevalence of Wheelchair and Scooter Use Among Community-Dwelling Canadians , 2016, Physical Therapy.

[19]  Shu Tian Cole,et al.  Accessibility and attitudinal barriers encountered by travelers with physical disabilities. , 2005 .

[20]  Hon K Yuen,et al.  Experience of Multisensory Environments in Public Space among People with Visual Impairment , 2015, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[21]  Laura Bezerra Martins,et al.  The deaf and the classroom design: a contribution of the built environmental ergonomics for the accessibility. , 2012, Work.

[22]  Denise Reid,et al.  The Experience of Senior Stroke Survivors: Factors in Community Participation among Wheelchair Users , 2006, Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie.

[23]  Luc Noreau,et al.  Measure of environmental accessibility (MEA): development and inter-rater reliability , 2018 .

[24]  H. Hoenig,et al.  Activity Restriction Among Wheelchair Users , 2003, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[25]  Agneta Ståhl,et al.  Barrier-free outdoor environments: Older peoples' perceptions before and after implementation of legislative directives , 2010 .

[26]  Donald R. Miller,et al.  Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: substantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[27]  Tilak Dutta,et al.  Design of built environments to accommodate mobility scooter users: part I , 2011, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[28]  C. Löfqvist,et al.  Mobility and mobility-related participation outcomes of powered wheelchair and scooter interventions after 4-months and 1-year use , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[29]  Basia Belza,et al.  Outdoor built environment barriers and facilitators to activity among midlife and older adults with mobility disabilities. , 2013, The Gerontologist.

[30]  Sean Bennett,et al.  Wheelchair accessibility: Descriptive survey of curb ramps in an urban area , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[31]  C. Booth,et al.  Technology Lecture - Technology and medicine , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[32]  Jones Ma,et al.  Barrier-free design: design for access. , 1978 .

[33]  Linda McClain,et al.  A Qualitative Assessment of Wheelchair Users' Experience with ADA Compliance, Physical Barriers, and Secondary Health Conditions , 2000 .

[34]  François Routhier,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE OF ACCESSIBILITY TO URBAN INFRASTRUCTURES: A CONTENT VALIDITY STUDY , 2016 .

[35]  W Ben Mortenson,et al.  Association Between Mobility, Participation, and Wheelchair‐Related Factors in Long‐Term Care Residents Who Use Wheelchairs as Their Primary Means of Mobility , 2012, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.