participantConditionSupported Controlled Vocabulary

[thill-odi]

For the broader context of this proposal, see #220

Several different classifications and taxonomies exist relevant to accessibility concerns, and in particular to the classification of impairments and afflictions requiring accessibility adaptation.

Within the OpenActive space, there are currently two vocabularies defined:

• the top-level vocabulary defined in relation to accessibility support https://www.openactive.io/accessibility-support/
• the ad hoc list evolved at https://github.com/openactive/modelling-opportunity-data/issues/67

In addition, various schemata are found in research in the area, as evidenced by the categories used in the Activity Alliance's 2020 Annual Disability and Activity Survey:

• Long-term pain
• Mobility
• Chronic health condition
• Breathing / stamina
• Dexterity
• Mental health
• Hearing
• Memory
• Learning
• Social / behavioural
• Vision
• Speech

Considered internationally, a number of classification schemes exist, with the Washington Group Enhanced Short Set being widely used and being broadly comparable the UK government definition under the Equality Act (see further Measuring Disability: Comparing Approaches ).

While the number of approaches and their lack of close alignment means harmonisation may be challenging, the benefits of a consistent SKOS (or perhaps SKOS-like) vocabulary for indicating conditions supported are clear: greater findability and filterability for end-users, carers, and link workers needing a clear sense of activity suitability.

Developing such a taxonomy, specifically adapted to physical-activity use cases, will need to be a collaborative endeavour across numerous authorities and interest groups. However, three starting points seem clear:

• a hierarchical model, with broad top terms dividing into narrower and more specialised terms, seem preferable to a flat list
• this hierarchy can be arbitrarily deep: while broad terms may be sufficient for most e.g. leisure centres, social-prescribing and therapeutic use-cases may demand more precision
• a governance structure similar to that of the existing OpenActive Activity Committee should form a useful starting point for defining and guiding the evolution of this list.

A preliminary hierarchy, attempting to unify the disparate approaches noted above, might look like this:

• Learning Impairment
• Mental Health Needs
• Neurological Impairment
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Dementia
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Stroke
• Physical Impairment
  • Breathing Impairment
  • Dexterity Impairment
  • Long-term Pain
  • Mobility Impairment
    • Support Required
    • Wheelchair Required
  • Osteoporosis
  • Overweight/Obesity
  • Pregnancy Support
    • Antenatal
    • Postnatal
  • Recuperative
    • Back Injury
    • Cancer Support
      • Breast Cancer Support
    • Cardiac
  • Stamina Impairment
• Sensory Impairment
  • Visual Impairment
  • Deafness
• Social/Behavioural Needs
  • Autism-spectrum
  • Communication Needs

Two usage notes are relevant to the above:

• The vocabulary used above may be too technical; alternative terms will need to be supplied in any implemented taxonomy to ensure usability
• The majority of people with disability needs suffer from more than one of them; equally, it may often be the case that more than one of these values is applicable to any given instance of accessibilitySupport.

[nickevansuk]

This looks great! Two quick comments:

If this is to be used and adopted in a similar way to the activity list, all prefLabels should be self-describing without the context of the hierarchy - as they may be displayed on their own. So e.g “Support Required” should be “Mobility Support Required”

Perhaps the prefLabels should be the most widely understood by the intended audience, with the altLabels used for technical terms (if these are not as widely understood). Hence prioritising the list user over the maintainer of the list.

[thill-odi]

Yes, a +1 to both of those. I think technical terms will be valuable in the accessibility space, so should be retained - but as you say, as altLabels rather than prefLabels. This in turn may lead to difficulties where applied and expert vocabularies don't quite cleave at the same point - but, then, resolving that is the job of the notional curation committee.

[thill-odi]

Note that the Activity Alliance have a controlled vocabulary of fourteen terms they user for describing health conditions. Locate and compare.

[thill-odi]

Revised schema incorporating points raised by Activity Alliance:

• Learning Difficulties
• Mental Health Needs
• Neurological Impairment
  • Brain Injury
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Dementia
  • Epilepsy
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Stroke
• Physical Impairment
  • Arthritis
  • Breathing Impairment
  • Dexterity Impairment
  • Long-term Pain
  • Mobility Impairment
    • Amputation
      • Lower Limb Amputee
      • Upper Limb Amputee
    • Restricted Growth
      • Dwarfism
    • Support Required
    • Upper Limb Amputee
    • Wheelchair Required
  • Osteoporosis
  • Overweight/Obesity
  • Recuperative
    • Back Injury
    • Cancer Support
      • Breast Cancer Support
    • Cardiac
    • Post-surgical
  • Stamina Impairment
• Pregnancy Support
  • Antenatal
  • Postnatal
• Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities (PMLD)
• Sensory Impairment
  • Visual Impairment
  • Deafness
• Social/Behavioural Needs
  • Autism-spectrum
  • Communication Needs
    • Speech Impairment
  • Sensory Processing Disorder

[thill-odi]

Additional notes/issues regarding the above:

• Arthritis is often associated in therapeutic terms with osteoporosis
• Sensory Processing Disorder is often reported by those diagnosed with it as a sensory impairment