PURPOSE: A descriptive cross-sectional study was undertaken to establish the ease of accessibility to wheelchair bound students of the campus of a large institution of higher education in South Africa. Accessibility was defined not simply in terms of access to buildings, but also of the added time and distance traveled by wheelchair bound students on the campus. METHODS: Five different faculties were randomly selected and typical routes travelled by a first year student in each faculty established. The shortest possible distances were mapped out for each faculty and measured using a metre wheel. For those in wheelchairs, this distance included the distance to ramps and to lifts. Mean speeds were used to determine the time taken to travel the measured distances. A checklist was used to measure the physical accessibility of the 18 buildings concerned. RESULTS: The total mean distance traveled between lecture theatre changeover by wheelchair-bound students was 402 metres (range 278-689 m for the different faculties), which was a mean difference of 66 m (range 11-145 m) longer than for ambulant students. The mean time taken was 17 minutes (range 11-28 minutes), which was 11 minutes (range 8-19 minutes) longer than for ambulant students. The Faculty of Mechanical Engineering fared the worst, at 689 metres and 28 minutes between changeover. Two of the 18 buildings measured were fully accessible, while three were completely inaccessible. Inaccessible toilets were the most common problem. CONCLUSIONS: Wheelchair-bound students consistently had to travel further and for longer times between lecture theatres in all the faculties measured. The students would therefore be unable to reach their lectures within the 10 minute time allocated by the university. The inaccessibility of the buildings limits the full integration of wheelchair-bound students into campus life. Certain administrative changes might assist in improving the ease of accessibility. Architectural adaptations, although more costly, might also prove to be effective.
PURPOSE: A descriptive cross-sectional study was undertaken to establish the ease of accessibility to wheelchair bound students of the campus of a large institution of higher education in South Africa. Accessibility was defined not simply in terms of access to buildings, but also of the added time and distance traveled by wheelchair bound students on the campus. METHODS: Five different faculties were randomly selected and typical routes travelled by a first year student in each faculty established. The shortest possible distances were mapped out for each faculty and measured using a metre wheel. For those in wheelchairs, this distance included the distance to ramps and to lifts. Mean speeds were used to determine the time taken to travel the measured distances. A checklist was used to measure the physical accessibility of the 18 buildings concerned. RESULTS: The total mean distance traveled between lecture theatre changeover by wheelchair-bound students was 402 metres (range 278-689 m for the different faculties), which was a mean difference of 66 m (range 11-145 m) longer than for ambulant students. The mean time taken was 17 minutes (range 11-28 minutes), which was 11 minutes (range 8-19 minutes) longer than for ambulant students. The Faculty of Mechanical Engineering fared the worst, at 689 metres and 28 minutes between changeover. Two of the 18 buildings measured were fully accessible, while three were completely inaccessible. Inaccessible toilets were the most common problem. CONCLUSIONS: Wheelchair-bound students consistently had to travel further and for longer times between lecture theatres in all the faculties measured. The students would therefore be unable to reach their lectures within the 10 minute time allocated by the university. The inaccessibility of the buildings limits the full integration of wheelchair-bound students into campus life. Certain administrative changes might assist in improving the ease of accessibility. Architectural adaptations, although more costly, might also prove to be effective.
Authors: Emma Tebbutt; Rebecca Brodmann; Johan Borg; Malcolm MacLachlan; Chapal Khasnabis; Robert Horvath Journal: Global Health Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 4.185