A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators Affecting the Lives of People With Disabilities During COVID-19.
Samantha Croft, Sarah Fraser
PMID 36188856WHAT IT FOUND
People with disabilities faced worsened access to care and information, but telehealth and clear masks helped some.
Therapists must ask about home internet, family support and safety before virtual care, and provide accessible communication.
Key findings
01Telehealth was both a barrier and a facilitator: it removed travel and allowed home observation, but required high-speed internet, family assistance, and was unsuitable for hearing tests or some cognitive conditions.
02Communication barriers were severe: masks blocked lipreading, many public health messages lacked sign language or easy-read formats, and virtual appointments often had no interpreters or captions.
03Care interruptions were widespread: 65% of people with disabilities reported disrupted care, with more than half experiencing worsening health outcomes, and children with intellectual disabilities lost rehabilitative services at high rates.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most included articles were opinion pieces or editorials, not rigorous studies, so the findings reflect expert commentary rather than measured outcomes. The review was limited to English-language articles, mostly from Western, developed countries, missing perspectives from low- and middle-income nations where barriers may be more severe. The search ended in September 2020, capturing only the first wave of the pandemic and not longer-term adaptations. The review did not assess the quality of the included studies. No articles reported instances where people with disabilities were included in pandemic decision-making, a gap the authors expected to find.
Declared interests
The authors declared no commercial or financial conflicts of interest. The publication was supported by the University of Ottawa scholarly communication support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat this as evidence that telehealth works for people with disabilities. The review found it was both a barrier and a facilitator, and most included articles were opinion pieces, not trials measuring outcomes. The 65% disruption rate and other numbers come from heterogeneous sources and should not be used to predict specific patient responses.