ArticleJournal of transport & health2024
TRansit ACessibility Tool (TRACT): Developing a novel scoring system for public transportation system accessibility.
Article in Journal of transport & health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neighborhoods and Incident Cardiometabolic Disease in People With Disability.American journal of preventive medicine · 2025Article
- Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Although federal laws require equal access to public transportation for people with disabilities, access barriers persist. Lack of sharing accessibility information on public transportation websites restricts people with disabilities from making transportation plans and effectively using public transportation systems. This project aims to document information provided about public transportation systems accessibility and share this information using an open data platform. Methods: We reviewed the top twenty-six public transportation systems in the United States based on federal funding in fiscal year 2020. Information about accessibility was abstracted from each public transportation system website by two independent reviewers from February-March 2022. Informed by universal design principles, public transportation systems were scored across six dimensions: facility accessibility (0-22 points), vehicle accessibility (0-11 points), inclusive policies (0-12 points), rider accommodations (0-9 points), paratransit services (0-6 points), and website accessibility (0-2 points). Total scores were calculated as the sum of each dimension (0-62 points). Data and findings were publicly disseminated (https://disabilityhealth.jhu.edu/transitdashboard/). Results: The average overall accessibility information score was 31.9 (SD=6.2) out of 62 possible points. Mean scores were 8.4 (SD=2.9) for facility accessibility, 4.5 (SD=2.1) for vehicle accessibility, 7.8 (SD=1.6) for inclusive policies, 4.9 (SD=1.6) for rider accommodations, 4.5 (SD=2.0) for paratransit services, and 1.8 (SD=0.4) for website accessibility. Eleven public transportation systems (42%) received the maximum score for paratransit services and 20 (77%) received the maximum score for website accessibility. No public transportation system received the maximum score for any of the other dimensions. Conclusions: Using a novel scoring system, we found significant variation in the accessibility information presented on public transportation system websites. Websites are a primary mode where users obtain objective information about public transportation systems and are therefore important platforms for communication. Absence of accessibility information creates barriers for the disability community and restricts equal access to public transportation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.