Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study aimed at reviewing the body of literature on barriers that Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) face in accessing urban roads. Furthermore, the study identified the trend of research, current research themes, research hotspots, knowledge gaps and future research direction in this knowledge domain. The study systematically retrieved a total of 64 publications, comprising of forty-four (44) articles selected for bibliometric review and an additional 20 relevant publications from the Google Scholar search. A total of 64 publications were used in the content analysis using Clarke and braun’s (2017) 6-step process for the thematic identification of the barriers. Twenty-eight (28) barriers were identified from content analysis and subsequently grouped thematically under four (4) broad categories: Attitudinal-related barriers, Physical barriers, Policy and Programme-related barriers, and Information and Communications Technology-related barriers. In practice, this study offers a readily available source of information that summarises the most recent findings in research on the accessibility of urban roads by PWDs. In addition, the themes emerging can be used as a sector-specific lens to spot barriers to accessing urban roads by PWDs. The interrelationships among these barriers highlight the need for policymakers to adopt a systematic approach in identifying the drivers/push factors that can promote an accessible pedestrian environment. • 66 publications retrieved from Scopus and Google Scholar to identify barriers to accessibility of urban roads by PWDs. • Four themes identified Attitudinal, Physical, Policy and Programme, and Information and Communications Technology barriers. • Gaps demanding further research include artificial intelligence, GIS and arterial roads.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asiedu-Ampem et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: