Improve accessibility and inclusion for all people
Confidence
Quality of Evidence
The evidence supporting the importance of improving accessibility and inclusion to foster social connection is high quality. Research consistently demonstrates that barriers to accessibility and inclusion, such as physical inaccessibility, social stigma, and discrimination, significantly contribute to social isolation, loneliness, and mental health issues. Studies show that inclusive practices, such as providing accessible public spaces, offering tailored programs, and promoting reconciliation, equity, diversity, and inclusion (REDI), lead to greater social participation, improved wellbeing, and stronger community cohesion. The evidence is robust across various populations and settings, emphasizing the need to address the unique barriers faced by marginalized and vulnerable groups. However, it is unclear which specific efforts have the greatest impact and it is apparent that the effectiveness of various approaches are dependent on local context and need. Studies of REDI interventions have varying methodological quality and have produced mixed results. Further, due to the breadth of such interventions it is difficult to identify the most appropriate interventions that can meaningful promote REDI. That said, community consultation and engagement at all stages of program development and implementation is observed to be important.
Balance of Benefits and Harms
The balance of benefits versus harms in improving accessibility and inclusion is strongly in favour of benefits. Removing barriers to social connection and promoting inclusive environments can lead to enhanced social engagement, reduced feelings of isolation, and improved mental and physical health for all community members. The potential harms, such as the costs of implementing accessibility measures or the challenges of addressing deeply ingrained social biases, are generally minimal and can be mitigated through collaborative efforts, community involvement, and policy support. The guideline’s comprehensive approach, which includes ensuring accessibility, offering tailored programs, and advancing REDI, further strengthens the benefits while minimizing risks.
Alignment with Values and Preferences
This guideline aligns strongly with the values and preferences of communities that prioritize social equity, inclusion, and human rights. The recommendation to improve accessibility and inclusion resonates with stakeholders across sectors, including urban planning, healthcare, education, and social services. It also appeals to community members who value fairness, social justice, and the wellbeing of all individuals, particularly people from marginalized groups. While some communities may face challenges in addressing entrenched barriers or reallocating resources, the guideline’s focus on equity and inclusion makes it highly acceptable across diverse contexts. However, we note that some political barriers may exist to REDI in limited circumstances. Careful community collaborations can help mitigate these challenges.
Feasibility
The feasibility of improving accessibility and inclusion at the community level is moderate to high. While implementing accessibility measures, offering tailored programs, and advancing REDI initiatives require resources, planning, and commitment, many communities already have frameworks in place to support these efforts. Additionally, partnerships with advocacy organizations, government agencies, and local stakeholders can enhance the feasibility of these initiatives. The guideline’s emphasis on tailored approaches ensures that interventions can be adapted to the specific needs and capacities of different communities, increasing its overall feasibility.
Certainty of Recommendation
Based on our assessment of the above criteria, we are confident that addressing accessibility limitations is critical to promoting social wellbeing. We believe the likelihood that additional information or evidence would cause us to reverse this recommendation is low.
Overall Assessment
The overall rating for this guideline is Strong Recommendation, Moderate Quality of Evidence.