Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39925990›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2024

Justice-centered best practices for accessibility to public buildings in a tier II city: Insights from a Delphi expert consensus.

Sidhiprada Mohapatra, G Arun Maiya, Ullas U Nayak, Rashmi Sheelvant, Vennila J, Joanne Watson, Rama Devi Nandineni

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Sidhiprada MohapatraCentre for Comprehensive Rehabilitation, Department of Physiotherapy, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6343-8195
G Arun MaiyaCentre for Podiatry & Diabetic Foot Care and Research, Department of Physiotherapy, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.
Ullas U NayakDivision of Anatomy, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9762-3090
Rashmi SheelvantDepartment of Physiotherapy, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7484-1875
Vennila JStatistics, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.
Joanne WatsonSchool of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, 3125, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5015-3492
Rama Devi NandineniManipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1115-5190

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite beneficial progress in policies, awareness and advocacy, accessibility gaps exist in public buildings in India. Challenges achieving full inclusivity still exist, due to a lack of clear guidance for implementing accessible solutions. Retrofitting older buildings, particularly in developing tier II cities is a major challenge. The authors of this paper aimed to address this issue using a four-round Delphi method to generate a Justice-Centered Best Practices (JCBPs) for accessibility provisions for individuals with mobility disabilities. Methods: Conducted in Udupi, the study involved experts including administrators, policy implementers, auditors, advocates, healthcare professionals, individuals with disabilities and their caregivers. In the first round, a 117-item list was generated through triangulation of three methods. In subsequent rounds, experts rated each item using a 5-point Likert scale on feasibility, affordability and priority. Responses were considered valid if the agreement reached ≥80% on the total score. The prioritised list of JCBPs was finalised at a consensus meeting. Results: Out of forty-eight experts who began the study, 16 participated in the final meeting. The Wilcoxon signed rank test (p value>0.05) of expert ranking indicated that the scoring of items remained consistent between the two rounds. A machine learning decision tree analysis identified items securing ≥ 80% agreement as the most reliable decision with an accuracy=71.43%. The McNemar's Test p value=0.79 confirmed consistency of expert scoring on the items with high agreement rates. Conclusion: Finally, 33 built and non-built environment items scored highest rank. Stakeholder engagement, use of low-cost technology solutions, coordination between public administrations, funding, good governance practice, awareness, and advocacy were few of the solutions that can help ensure accessibility is in place for individuals with mobility disabilities. The study methodology and findings create a robust foundation for evidence-based JCBPs for accessibility provisions for individuals with mobility disabilities.

Indexed as

Architectural AccessibilitySocial JusticeCitiesConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansIndiaPersons with Disabilitiesadministrationdecision treeexpertinclusionmachine learningmunicipalitypublic spaces

Identifiers

PMID39925990
PMCPMC11803383

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.