DOI: 10.3886/e216421
title: “Patiently waiting”: How do non-driving disabled adults get around in rural America

description: Most mobility needs in rural America are primarily met via driving. Yet many disabled adults cannot drive. Lack of adequate public transportation in rural areas exacerbates transportation-related disparities. We interviewed 33 non-driving disabled adults throughout the U.S. to explore how they get around in their rural communities. Research questions primarily focused on the relationships between transportation, community participation, healthcare access, and social capital. We used thematic analysis to identify themes related to our research questions. In general, interviewees described a dearth of public transportation options. Even if public transit were available, other issues limited use such as inaccessibility, expenses, or schedules and routes. Many participants also described getting rides from others. While this was a critical component of many individuals’ daily travel, it also introduced a layer of dependency and social pressure that otherwise would not exist with more independent means of transportation. Policy implications include improved public transit funding and strategies to promote universal auto access.
description: NA<br>
description: Response Rates: NA
description: Presence of Common Scales: NA
description: We used purposive sampling to recruit individuals who met three inclusion criteria: 1) living in a rural area of the U.S., 2) having a disability, and 3) relying on public transportation or others for rides. Recruitment flyers were emailed to national, regional, and state-based organizations that served people with disabilities. These organizations subsequently relayed this information to individuals in their networks. Interested participants contacted us via email or phone. Inclusion criteria were verified via self-report. Verification of disability occurred through the screening question, “Do you have a disability?” The specifics of their disability and how it impacted their travel were further explored in data collection. Rurality was verified by matching addresses to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) county classifications. Individuals who lived in non-metropolitan counties were automatically included. Those who lived in a metropolitan county were asked to describe their rural context, and recruited into the study if they lived outside of a city (e.g., countryside) or in a non-urbanized area as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (population less than 50,000). This two-pronged strategy ensured we captured a broad experience of rurality and accounted for the varying sizes of counties across America. Overall, we interviewed 33 people across 16 states. Of these participants, 22 lived in a non-metropolitan county and 11 lived in rural areas of a metropolitan county. All procedures were approved by the University of Montana Institutional Review Board. Participants received a $30 incentive for their participation.
description: Disabled non-drivers living in rural U.S.. Smallest Geographic Unit: United States
description: computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI); computer-assisted self interview (CASI); computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI); telephone audio computer-assisted self interview (TACASI); To collect this data, qualitative interviews were preformed with disabled non-driving individuals living across rural parts of the United States.