COVID-19 vaccine website accessibility dashboard

Jo, Grace; Habib, Daniel; Varadaraj, Varshini; Smith, Jared; Epstein, Sabrina; Zhu, Jiafeng; Yenokyan, Gayane; Ayers, Kara; Swenor, Bonnielin K.

doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2022.101325

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data were collected in a coding instrument in Microsoft excel based on prior similar tools 17 , 18 that were adapted to include SNAP-program specific data items. As previously done, the custom coding instrument allowed coders to input the description of a program's indicator-specific performance, and subsequently calculated the corresponding numerical point allotment (total score).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accessibility scores, as in prior work, 17 were calculated using an average of automated accessibility test data across a broad sample of SNAP site pages and high-level manual accessibility testing on both the SNAP information and registration pages, when available. The WAVE accessibility tool 23 was used to collect automatic accessibility data.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 14 Together, these principles can be used to evaluate whether systems and processes are inclusive of and provide equitable access to people with disabilities 15 , 16 and have been applied in other studies to evaluate disability inclusion in U.S. higher education and COVID-19 vaccine accessibility. 17 , 18 However, there is a dearth of research using these principles to evaluate programs and processes, such as SNAP enrollment. This information is needed to identify areas for improvement, track change, and develop strategies to make SNAP enrollment processes more equitable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The development of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program enrollment accessibility (SNAP-access) score

Samuel

Xiao²,

Cerilli³

et al. 2022

Disability and Health Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The development of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program enrollment accessibility (SNAP-access) score

Samuel

Xiao²,

Cerilli³

et al. 2022

Disability and Health Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(T 4 .) Assets for accessibility evaluation: (1) propose a hybrid evaluation approach for improving user experience [97]; (2) A hybrid evaluation process for accessibility, usability, quality and readability testing [93]; (3) A semiautomated evaluation process incorporating AChecker, Total Validator, WAVE and expert opinion to examine the webpage code [94]; (4) AChecker is an automated validator to analyze education cooperative websites to determine its accessibility considering disabilities [95]; (5) TAW is an automated validator to validate websites against the conformance of WCAG 2.0 [96]; (6) A simulator for visual, hearing and mobility impairment to visualize the accessibility issue associated with the particular disability [98]; (7) A semi-automated process considering axe Monitor, Pope Tech, Siteimprove, ARC with user feedback to validate websites accessibility [99]; (8) WAVE is an automated validator to validate the accessibility of COVID-19 vaccine registration portals [100]; (9) accessibility evaluation through comparative analysis using automatic accessibility testing protocols and statistical observation [101]; (10) AChecker is an automated validator to evaluate website accessibility [102]; (11) AChecker, Cynthia Says, and TAW are automated validators to validate website e-accessibility [103]; (12) A comparative analysis using Webaccessibility automated accessibility validator and statistical technique to validate the websites against WCAG 2.1 conformance guidelines [104]; (13) Google PageSpeed Insights, Blink Audit Tool, Backlink Checker, WAVE and Bulk are automated validator to assess and evaluate website quality [105]; (14) Achecker, TAW, Eval Access, MAUVE and FAE are automated validators to identify the accessibility issues of the selected websites [51].…”

Section: Assets Of Testing (T) (T 1 ) Assets For Automatic Detection ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accessibility engineering in web evaluation process: a systematic literature review

Ara

Sik-Lányi

Kelemen

2023

Univ Access Inf Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several works of literature contributed to the web evaluation process in recent years to promote digital inclusion by addressing several accessibility guidelines, methods, processes, and techniques. Researchers have investigated how the web evaluation process could be facilitated by including accessibility issues to obtain an inclusive and accessible solution to improve the user experience and increase user satisfaction. Three systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have been conducted in the context of past research, considering such research focuses. This paper presents a new SLR approach concerning accessibility in the web evaluation process, considering the period from 2010 to 2021. The review of 92 primary studies showed the contribution of publications on different phases of the web evaluation process mainly by highlighting the significant studies in the framework design and testing process. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study focused on the web accessibility literature reporting the engineering assets for evaluation of new accessible and inclusive web-based solutions (e.g., websites). Besides, in this study, we aim to provide a new direction to the web designers and developers with an updated view of process, methods, techniques, tools, and other crucial aspects to contribute to the accessible process enrichment, as well as depict the gaps and challenges that may be worthy to be investigated in the future. The findings of this SLR introduce a new dimension in web accessibility research on determining and mitigating the research gap of web accessibility issues for web designers, developers, and other practitioners.

show abstract

“…Engaging healthcare workers and people with disabilities directly in such assessments may catalyse this progress, highlighting directly to the healthcare workforce where they can improve their services in line with the priorities of their patients. Accessibility audits are common practice in transportation, websites, and other public spaces to assess the state of disability inclusion and comply with local laws around access for people with disabilities [12][13][14]. However, the accessibility of the health sector is relatively understudied, with no internationally agreed accessibility standards or best practice tools.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting and pilot testing a tool to assess the accessibility of primary health facilities for people with disabilities in Luuka District, Uganda

Mactaggart,

Ssemata,

Menya

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with disabilities frequently experience barriers in seeking healthcare that lead to poorer health outcomes compared to people without disabilities. To overcome this, it is important to assess the accessibility of primary health facilities – broadly defined to include a disability-inclusive service provision – so as to document present status and identify areas for improvement. We aimed to identify, adapt and pilot test an appropriate tool to assess the accessibility of primary health facilities in Luuka District, Uganda. Methods We conducted a rapid literature review to identify appropriate tools, selecting the Disability Awareness Checklist (DAC) on account of its relative brevity and development as a sensitization and action tool. We undertook three rounds of adaptation, working together with youth researchers (aged 18 – 35) with disabilities who then underwent 2 days of training as DAC facilitators. The adapted tool comprised 71 indicators across four domains and 12 sub-domains. We also developed a structured feedback form for facilitators to complete with healthcare workers. We calculated mean accessibility scores overall, per domain and per sub-domain, and categorised feedback form suggestions by type and presumed investment level. We pilot-tested the adapted tool in 5 primary health facilities in one sub-district of Luuka, nested within a pilot healthcare worker training on disability. Results The average overall facility accessibility score was 19.7% (range 12.3 – 28.8). Facility scores were highest in the universal design and accessibility domain (29.7%, 22.6 – 41.9), followed by reasonable accommodation (21.3%, 6.7 – 33.3). Average scores for capacity of facility staff (9.3%, 6.7 – 20.0), and linkages to other services were lower (5.0%, 0 – 25.0). Within the feedback forms, there were on average 21 suggestions (range 14 – 26) per facility. Most commonly, these were categorised as minor structural changes (20% of suggestions), with a third categorised as no (2%) or low (33%) cost, and the majority (40%) medium cost. Conclusions Overall accessibility scores were low, with many opportunities for low-cost improvement at the facility level. We did not identify any issues with the implementation of the tool, suggesting few further adaptations are required for its future use in this setting.

show abstract

COVID-19 vaccine website accessibility dashboard

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

The development of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program enrollment accessibility (SNAP-access) score

The development of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program enrollment accessibility (SNAP-access) score

Accessibility engineering in web evaluation process: a systematic literature review

Adapting and pilot testing a tool to assess the accessibility of primary health facilities for people with disabilities in Luuka District, Uganda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About