Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34271933›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021

Examining the role of governmsent in shaping disability inclusiveness around COVID-19: a framework analysis of Australian guidelines.

David Colon-Cabrera, Shivika Sharma, Narelle Warren, Dikaios Sakellariou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David Colon-CabreraSchool of Social Sciences, Monash University, Level 4, 20 Chancellors Walk (Menzies Building), Clayton Campus, VIC, 3800, Clayton, Australia.
Shivika SharmaSchool of Social Sciences, Monash University, Level 4, 20 Chancellors Walk (Menzies Building), Clayton Campus, VIC, 3800, Clayton, Australia.
Narelle WarrenSchool of Social Sciences, Monash University, Level 4, 20 Chancellors Walk (Menzies Building), Clayton Campus, VIC, 3800, Clayton, Australia.
Dikaios SakellariouSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Eastgate House, Newport Road 35-43, CF24 0AB, Cardiff, United Kingdom. sakellarioud@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2668-2834

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered the ways in which disabled people are made more vulnerable due to structural inequalities. These vulnerabilities are the result of the interaction between individual and structural factors that shape how risk is experienced by disabled people. In Australia, these vulnerabilities are influenced by the way disability services and care for disabled people are delivered through a consumer-directed approach. We analysed the policies and documentation made by the Australian Government and state and territory governments during the pandemic to explore whether these were disability-inclusive. We aimed to unpack how these policies shaped disabled people as vulnerable citizens.

methodsGuided by documentary research, we used framework analysis to examine the policies of the Australian Government and state and territory governments. We analysed legislation that was given royal assent by the federal, state and territory governments, and documents (reports, fact sheets, guidance documents, etc.) published by the federal government and the state of Victoria (given that this state experienced the brunt of the epidemic in Australia) between February 2020 to August of 2020.

resultsWe found that most of the resources were not aimed at disabled people, but at carers and workers within disability services. In addition, most policies formulated by the Australian Government were related to the expansion of welfare services and the creation of economic stimulus schemes. However, while the stimulus included unemployed people, the expansion of benefits explicitly excluded disabled people who were not employed. Most of the legislation and documents offered accessibility options, though most of these options were only available in English. Disability oriented agencies offered more extensive accessibility options.

conclusionsThe findings indicate a large number of documents addressing the needs of disabled people. However, disability-inclusiveness appeared to be inconsistent and not fully considered, leaving disabled people exposed to greater risk of COVID-19. Neoliberal policies in the health and welfare sector in Australia have led to an individualisation of the responsibility to remain healthy and a reliance on people as independent consumers. Governments need to take a clear stance towards the emergence of such a discourse that actively disvalues disabled people.

Indexed as

GovernmentPandemicsPersons with DisabilitiesPolicyAustraliaCOVID-19Guidelines as TopicHumansRisk AssessmentVulnerable PopulationsAustraliaConvention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesCOVID-19DisabilityInclusivenessPolicy analysis

Identifiers

PMID34271933
PMCPMC8283747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.