Accessibility of Canadian COVID-19 Testing Locations for People with Disabilities During the Third Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Background: Canadians with disabilities make up nearly a quarter of the population yet faced barriers in accessing information about COVID-19 testing accessibility across the country. Objective: This study aimed to understand the availability of accessibility information for COVID-19 testing sites in Canada. To date, no known studies have evaluated the availability of accessibility information online.Methods: An environmental scan of COVID-19 testing websites was conducted (1) nationally through the provincial/territorial websites for COVID-19 testing and (2) in Ontario, where there was individual location information. Data on key accessibility features were extracted from the website to simulate the user experience of booking a COVID-19 test during March 2021. Results: All provinces and territories provided minimal accessibility information on their provincial or territorial COVID-19 testing websites. Only Ontario included accessibility information for individual testing locations. Out of 170 individual testing locations in Ontario, few had information about accessibility, with only 8.2% listing at least 3 of the 5 key accessibility features measured on their websites.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that, more than a year into the pandemic, there existed a clear lack of accessibility information for testing locations for Canadians with disabilities.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.30.21267076: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: This study was exclusively conducted online, using only publicly available information. While this simulates the user’s experience of trying to find an accessible testing location and decide whether or not to get tested, it may not sufficiently capture the full accessibility or inaccessibility of a location. In addition, several locations noted that additional needs could be met in order to accommodate people with disabilities, but where these measures were not clear or publicly detailed online.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.