View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Perceived Training Needs of Municipal Stakeholders in Quebec (Canada) Relating to Universal Design Action Plans

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Perceived Training Needs of Municipal Stakeholders in Quebec (Canada) Relating to Universal Design Action Plans
Language: English
Authors: Annie Rochette (ORCID 0000-0002-0189-0987), P. Vermeulen (ORCID 0000-0001-8886-5778), N. Boucher (ORCID 0000-0002-0778-6152), N. Roussel, N. Simard, G. Grondin-Gravel, G. Corbeil, A. Morissette, M. Lamontagne, P. Fougeyrollas (ORCID 0000-0001-9794-2720)
Source: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 2026 73(4):818-836.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Educational Needs, Stakeholders, Municipalities, Accessibility (for Disabled)
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2025.2467355
ISSN: 1034-912X
1465-346X
Abstract: Quebec (Canada) municipalities with ≥15 000 inhabitants are legally required to produce an annual action plan to reduce barriers encountered by person with disabilities. Actual tools for universal design are diverse and not harmonised between cities, leading to important training needs. We thus aimed to identify priority training needs among municipalities of all sizes. We use a two-phase sequential descriptive design starting with an online survey (Phase 1) anchored into dimensions of inclusive access followed by focus group discussions (Phase 2). Descriptive statistics and a semi-inductive content analysis for qualitative data were used. A total of n = 114 municipalities responded to Phase 1 including nearly half (37/78) of municipalities with a population ≥15 000 inhabitants. The top five priority needs were 1) Needs assessment, 2) General knowledge, 3) Practical and organisational knowledge, 4) Design/planning phase and 5) Know-how, attitudes, mentalities, culture of the municipalities. Participants (n = 10) to Phase 2 insisted on their needs for practical knowledge, including authentic, contextualised examples coming from other cities. No major differences in needs to prioritise emerged when contrasting larger and smaller size's municipalities. Results highlighted a variety of training needs, including the importance of prioritising practical contextualised knowledge anchored in authentic experience.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1504204
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE9r4rj6QAuVAaJrpgvkwIrAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCAqRHQJEvQeiQ5l2QIBEICBmmkUCCLM2QoG1rz0Rs7M3L1I8gJ0FXQM5LgPQSE2cnqGKiundneZxy_h6O3MJyoiGE1SaEP2bHuSzfSkVKVvaPziARR-JlP1zoB7zBBz-QrpKB0mZWI7ZEjBrRdXG0Yb3Js97JtrrYHt2ewxs8w7YmD4cjNMwcBoyYqSVDhA0fI0lShJdHRn_QoysGyuUIEHjatfIdoOnTKTD6c=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0193139138;54q01may.26;2026Apr23.02:42;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193139138-1">Perceived Training Needs of Municipal Stakeholders in Quebec (Canada) Relating to Universal Design Action Plans </title> <p>Quebec (Canada) municipalities with ≥15 000 inhabitants are legally required to produce an annual action plan to reduce barriers encountered by person with disabilities. Actual tools for universal design are diverse and not harmonised between cities, leading to important training needs. We thus aimed to identify priority training needs among municipalities of all sizes. We use a two-phase sequential descriptive design starting with an online survey (Phase 1) anchored into dimensions of inclusive access followed by focus group discussions (Phase 2). Descriptive statistics and a semi-inductive content analysis for qualitative data were used. A total of n = 114 municipalities responded to Phase 1 including nearly half (37/78) of municipalities with a population ≥15 000 inhabitants. The top five priority needs were 1) Needs assessment, 2) General knowledge, 3) Practical and organisational knowledge, 4) Design/planning phase and 5) Know-how, attitudes, mentalities, culture of the municipalities. Participants (n = 10) to Phase 2 insisted on their needs for practical knowledge, including authentic, contextualised examples coming from other cities. No major differences in needs to prioritise emerged when contrasting larger and smaller size's municipalities. Results highlighted a variety of training needs, including the importance of prioritising practical contextualised knowledge anchored in authentic experience.</p> <p>Keywords: action plan; disability; inclusive access; municipalities; Training needs; universal design</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-2">Introduction</hd> <p>According to the United Nations, person with disability represent around 15% of the world's population, making them the largest minority (WHO, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref1">38</reflink>]). It is now well recognised that environmental factors, both physical and social, can influence inclusion into society and social participation of the population at large and even more so those with disability (P. Fougeyrollas, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]; Imrie, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref3">19</reflink>]). At a macro level, the Quebec's government adopted Law 56, whose section 61.1 (Publications Québec, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref4">33</reflink>]) requires municipalities with a population of 15 000 inhabitants or more to adopt and implement action plans to reduce environmental barriers to the social participation of person with disabilities.</p> <p>The concept of universal design (National Disability Authority, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]) has emerged as the primary paradigm for defining the purpose of action plans in Quebec's municipalities. The operationalisation of the concept has generated challenges, notably, the notion of 'accessibility' focuses on standardised values or norms of physical or virtual environment, neglecting social acceptability as attitudes and education and without taking into account subjective experience. In this perspective, the concept of 'inclusive access' is based on five dimensions: availability, accessibility, acceptability, affordability and usability (Fougeyrollas, Fiset, et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]). This notion was grounded in the conceptual Model of Human Development and the Disability Creation Process (Patrick Fougeyrollas, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]; P. Fougeyrollas, Boucher, et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]), on which is anchored our study. This model is widely used in the province of Quebec (Canada) at the governmental level and also by municipalities and health authorities. It presents an individual's social participation as the result of the interaction between personal and environmental factors and other life habits. Thus, the multiplication of environmental barriers can hinder a person's full social participation, leading to disabling situations. Municipal environmental factors can be grouped according to the classification of municipal responsibilities (Boucher et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]) under nine categories: 1) urban furniture, 2) supply, 3) concertation, 4) communication and support, 5) public safety, 6) housing, 7) leisure/recreation, 8) culture and 9) employment and transportation.</p> <p>In order to enable full social participation of person with disabilities, Quebec's municipal coordinators in charge of action plans must work with different municipal responsibilities stakeholders to enable inclusive access. A recent study (Boucher et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]) which aimed to evaluate the effects of action plans in four Quebec cities showed a need to identify and harmonise practices and available support resources in order to arrive at a training program that meets the needs of the various actors involved in the development of action plans. The present study was initiated by our municipal partners who are the knowledge-users and is following on these results. Indeed, the network for municipal accessibility witnessed great concerns and needs from people in charge of action plan at various provincial meetings.</p> <p>Prior to undertaking this study, we aimed to search the literature by way of a scoping review (unpublished) to identify the state of the knowledge in the field of training of municipal actors on universal design. The search was done on Medline first and then on PubMed, Embase Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, Carn, Érudit, Francis, IBSS, Sociological Abstract and SUDOC by a professional librarian and guided by a combination of the themes 'education, responsibility, handicap and city'. The 14 articles that were finally included have been published between 2012 and 2019 and come from a wide range of countries: five were carried out in Europe (Ask, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]; Chappe & Dumont, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>]; Drobi, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Nijs & Heylighen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref14">25</reflink>]; Woolley, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref15">39</reflink>]), four in Asia (Abd Samad et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]; Harrison et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]; King et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>]; Paksoy Erbaydar et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref19">28</reflink>]), two in South America (Andrade & Elye, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>]; Costa et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref21">8</reflink>]), two in North America (Gharebaghi et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]; Yip et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref23">40</reflink>]) and one in Oceania (Watchorn et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>]). All of these 14 studies mentioned an environmental component related to universal design. Acceptability was the most common category. It was addressed in 9 articles out of 14, while accessibility was mentioned in six articles (Andrade & Elye, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]; Gharebaghi et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>]; King et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]; Woolley, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref28">39</reflink>]; Yip et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]). Availability was discussed in two articles (Andrade & Elye, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]; Chappe & Dumont, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]), as were affordability (Gharebaghi et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]; King et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]) and usability (Andrade & Elye, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]; Gharebaghi et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]). It should be noted that the articles that named components of affordability all mentioned accessibility components. These articles, along with our experts' knowledge-users on the research team, were used to inform methods below.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-3">Objective</hd> <p>Identify priority training needs among municipalities to support them in the implementation of effective action plans to improve the social participation of person with disabilities in Quebec municipalities.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-4">Materials and Methods</hd> <p>A two-phase sequential descriptive design was used. Phase 1 consisted of an online survey with open and closed questions among coordinators and their collaborators followed by a focus group discussion (Phase 2) held with stakeholders from municipalities of different sizes, including minimally two with less than 15 000 inhabitants. The design of this study was mixed (Pluye & Hong, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]), including a quantitative analysis of part of the survey and a qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey responses and the content of the focus groups. This study received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Board of the research centre of first author's affiliation. All survey respondents and participants to focus group discussion provided informed consent.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-5">Sampling and Recruitment</hd> <p>A convenience sampling method was used. All Quebec municipalities (approximately 1000) were invited to complete the online survey by sending an email invitation from the mailing lists of one of our main partners (CAMF).</p> <p>A link to the survey was mailed to potential participants along with a letter (information and consent form) explaining the current project. If there was no appointed coordinator within the municipality, the email was sent to the municipality's executive director who could forward the invitation to the person deemed best suited to complete the survey. A solicitation email was sent to all participants selected for the study, reminding them of a deadline to complete the survey. Based on the work of Edwards et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>]), the team developed a quick questionnaire to complete (15 min maximum). Information about the confidentiality of the data collected and a consent form was included in the email sent.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-6">Target Population</hd> <p>The target population for the survey was coordinators of action plan for cities of 15 000 inhabitants or more and those identified as responsible for inclusion for cities with less than 15 000 inhabitants, working for the social participation, support and safety of person with disabilities. The Quebec municipalities targeted by this project were through the <emph>Carrefour Action Municipale et Famille</emph> (CAMF) which was renamed as Espace Muni in 2020, meaning municipal space. Their pre-established lists of municipalities were used to solicit key players to complete the online survey.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-7">Phase 1: Online Survey</hd> <p>The questionnaire was informed by the scoping review and developed by the project team including researchers and knowledge-users. It was made up of three sections: 1) sociodemographic data and the professional profile of the respondents (age, gender, schooling, position held, directorate of attachment and years of experience); 2) information related to the municipality (size, mechanisms for consultation, actual use of training) and 3) questions relating to training needs anchored into the five dimensions of inclusive access (Fougeyrollas, Fiset, et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref38">14</reflink>]) and into the categories of municipal responsibilities (Boucher et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>]), some of which were reformulated following pre-test to ensure comprehensiveness by respondents (see Tables 3 and 4). The survey questionnaire was pre-tested by seven municipal actors (elected officials and civil servants) who are members of the CAMF in order to ensure that the questions were understood, that the choice of answers was feasible and that the time required to complete the questionnaire was appropriate (Kelley et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>]). The survey was then answered online from 20 September to 2 December 2019.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-8">Phase 2: Focus Groups</hd> <p>In addition to the online survey, individuals' perceptions of training needs were documented through qualitative research methods (Pope et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref41">30</reflink>]). The choice to conduct focus groups was considered the most appropriate technique to meet our research objectives in order to gather information about the perceived needs of municipalities (Breen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]). Exploring the dynamic interactions between participants adds value to the data collection, since beyond the individual preferences of each participant, the group can arrive at a general idea of the prioritisation of needs raised. The ultimate goal was to formalise a general training module and more specific training modules related to municipal responsibilities. Thus, the discussion groups made it possible to bring together several key players from different municipalities in order to have a cross-cutting approach to specific problems encountered in the field. The discussion focused around three main themes: 1) description of the context of the municipality, 2) reactions to the Phase 1 survey results and priority training needs and 3) pedagogical preferences for training modules. These themes to be discussed were sent by email along with consent forms a few weeks before holding the focus group. Following theme 2 discussions, using a round table approach, each participant was also specifically asked to rank their municipalities' training needs starting with the highest priority.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-9">Target Population and Recruitment</hd> <p>Six to eight focus groups were planned to be organised. Each group was planned to include 6 to 10 participants from Quebec municipalities, two of which having fewer than 15 000 inhabitants. They were made up of coordinators and their collaborators from municipalities working on the social participation of person with disabilities. Participants were recruited on a voluntary basis during the survey. At the end of the online survey (Phase 1), respondents were asked to volunteer to participate in the focus groups (Phase 2).</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-10">Focus Group Procedures</hd> <p>The focus groups were conducted online using a video conferencing application, namely Zoom. The advantages of using this technique were numerous for this project, such as a reduction in costs, logistics and a reduction in barriers related to geography. Data collection was planned to occur before the pandemic, but we did face availability challenges from participants (last-minute cancellation) because of an overlap with data collection at the time period the pandemic arrived in Quebec (Spring 2020). The groups were hybrid relating to city size for feasibility reasons. This also allowed a more macroscopic consensus according to the issues raised.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-11">Data Collection</hd> <p>A moderator and a member of the research team facilitated the focus groups. The moderator led the discussion, ensuring that participants remain focused on the study's purpose and that everyone participates equitably. The collaborator observed the interactions and group dynamics and was responsible for rephrasing the ideas brought forward to ensure a common understanding, synthesising and co-facilitating the discussion.</p> <p>Since all participants received the information and consent form by email, verbal consent was collected (and audio recorded) at the beginning, after presenting the objective of the focus group. Following this, the main results of the online survey were presented as a basis for discussion. The moderator explained the confidentiality of the data and reminded participants of the need for audio recording of the discussion. Open-ended questions were used as a guide for the moderators but remained flexible to allow for discussion on topics or issues raised by participants. The interview guide was sent to participants along with information and consent form through email when scheduling the time and date of the focus group. Each focus group lasted a maximum of 90 min. At the end of the focus groups, the facilitators met to debrief, complete the annotations of observations and make a live synthesis of the content that emerged during the discussion. These data complement the data collected from the audio recordings (Morgan & Krueger, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]). The audio data was fully transcribed and verified by a member of the research team. Information about the participant's identity was removed.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-12">Quantitative Analysis</hd> <p>Descriptive analysis was used to provide information about the study population and their training needs. Mean ± standard deviation or frequency (percentage) distributions were used to analyse the closed-ended questions. An exploratory analysis was conducted to look for differences between respondents by responsibility and city size using cross-tabulations and the Chi2 test.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-13">Qualitative Analysis</hd> <p>Analysis of the focus group transcripts as well as the responses to the open-ended survey questions was done through content analysis (Paillé & Mucchielli, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]). Using an axial analysis (Poupart et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]), a semi-inductive approach was used in order to identify central meanings among the data according to the objectives of the study by referring to the five dimensions of inclusive access (Fougeyrollas, Fiset, et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref46">14</reflink>]). Data analysis was done by PV and according to a coding process leading to data reduction in the following five steps: 1) Preliminary reading of the raw data, 2) Identification of text segments specifically related to the research objectives, 3) Labelling the text segments to create categories, 4) Reduction of redundant or similar categories and 5) Creation of themes that incorporate the most important categories. Qualitative data analysis software (QDA Miner) was used for data management as well as to facilitate analysis by the research team. Van der Maren ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]) suggests ensuring data quality in the selection of materials, data processing and interpretation of results to avoid researcher bias. Reverse coding and cross-coding were done by three more people on the research team (AR, PF & NB) for more than 30% (140/439 codes) of codes. A reflective journal was kept during data collection, and analysis to ensure that decisions and reflections made by the team were recorded (Watt, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref48">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The interpretation of the results was verified internally by the research team but also externally by the full project team including partners who are the knowledge-users. Thus, a lot of feedbacks were made at different times during extended team meetings to ensure the validity of the analysis (Van der Maren, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-14">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193139138-15">Sample Characteristics</hd> <p>A total of 1 845 distinct invitation emails were sent to 948 cities and 49 regional county municipalities (RCMs) for a response rate of 11.4% (114/997). However, the response rate for municipalities with a population of 15 000 inhabitants or more, who are required to adopt and implement action plans, was 47.4% (37/78). Characteristics of respondents and of the municipalities they represented can be found in Table 1. No difference was found between respondents representing larger and smaller cities for gender and number of years of experience in this municipality. However, respondents in larger cities were slighter younger, held more often a university degree, were less often the director or attached to the general management team, had more often an identified person responsible for actions to foster inclusion and a permanent consultation mechanism in place (see Table 1) which is coherent with larger teams. Nine municipalities (including 10 participants) of varying size were represented through four focus groups (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and municipalities (mean and standard deviation for age and years of experience; frequency (%) for other variables).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td><p>Total (n = 114)</p></td><td><p>Municipalities of < 15 000 inhabitants (n = 76)</p></td><td><p>Municipalities of ≥ 15,000 inhabitants (n = 37)</p></td><td><p>p Value</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><bold>Age of respondents</bold> [23–74 years] (<italic>n</italic> = 88)</p></td><td><p>44.2 ± 10.4</p></td><td><p>44.6 ± 11.6 <italic>N</italic> = 58</p></td><td><p>43.2 ± 7.9 <italic>N</italic> = 29</p></td><td><p><bold>0.03</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Gender</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td><p><bold>0.06</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Women</p></td><td><p>79 (69.3)</p></td><td><p>51 (68.0)</p></td><td><p>26 (70.3)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Men</p></td><td><p>35 (30.7)</p></td><td><p>24 (32.0)</p></td><td><p>11 (29.7)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Schooling</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td><p><bold><0.0001</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Highschool</p></td><td><p>7 (6.3)</p></td><td><p>7 (9.3)</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> College</p></td><td><p>43 (38.4)</p></td><td><p>39 (52.0)</p></td><td><p>4 (10.8)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> University – baccalaureate</p></td><td><p>42 (37.5)</p></td><td><p>18 (24.0)</p></td><td><p>24 (64.9)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> University −2<sup>nd</sup> cycle</p></td><td><p>19 (17.0)</p></td><td><p>10 (13.3)</p></td><td><p>9 (24.3)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> University −3<sup>rd</sup> cycle</p></td><td><p>1 (0.9)</p></td><td><p>1 (1.3)</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Other (certificate, professional diploma)</p></td><td><p>12 (10.5)</p></td><td><p>10 (13.3)</p></td><td><p>2 (5.4)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>Missing data</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>2</italic></p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Position held</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td><p><bold><0.0001</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Director</p></td><td><p>51 (45.9)</p></td><td><p>46 (62.2)</p></td><td><p>5 (13.5)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Assistant, agent, manager, treasurer</p></td><td><p>21 (18.9)</p></td><td><p>12 (16.2)</p></td><td><p>9 (24.3)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Chief, manager, responsible</p></td><td><p>14 (12.6)</p></td><td><p>3 (4.1)</p></td><td><p>11 (29.7)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Advisor, Coordinator</p></td><td><p>18 (16.2)</p></td><td><p>7 (9.5)</p></td><td><p>11 (29.7)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Other</p></td><td><p>7 (6.3)</p></td><td><p>6 (8.1)</p></td><td><p>1 (2.7)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>Missing data</italic></p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Directorate of attachment</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td><p><bold><0.0001</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> General management</p></td><td><p>22 (28.2)</p></td><td><p>17 (37.8)</p></td><td><p>5 (15.2)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Culture. Sports and Recreation</p></td><td><p>30 (38.5)</p></td><td><p>7 (15.6)</p></td><td><p>23 (69.7)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> City</p></td><td><p>8 910.3)</p></td><td><p>8 (17.6)</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> City Council</p></td><td><p>7 (9.0)</p></td><td><p>7 (15.6)</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Administration</p></td><td><p>5 (6.4)</p></td><td><p>4 (8.9)</p></td><td><p>1 (3.0)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Other</p></td><td><p>6 (7.7)</p></td><td><p>2 (4.4)</p></td><td><p>4 (12.1)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>Missing data</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>36</italic></p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Years of experience</bold> in this municipality</p></td><td><p>7.9 ± 8.2</p></td><td><p>7.8 ± 8.0</p></td><td><p>7.9 ± 8.6</p></td><td><p><bold>0.33</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> [0 to 36 years]</p></td><td /><td><p><italic>N</italic> = 74</p></td><td><p><italic>N</italic> = 37</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Municipality size</bold></p></td><td /><td><p><italic>N</italic> = 76</p></td><td><p><italic>N</italic> = 37</p></td><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Less than 10.000 population</p></td><td><p>68 (60.2)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> 10.000 to 14.999 population</p></td><td><p>8 (7.1)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> 15.000 to 49.999 population</p></td><td><p>20 (17.7)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> 50.000 to 99.999 population</p></td><td><p>9 (8.0)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Population over 100.000</p></td><td><p>8 (7.1)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>Missing data</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>1</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Person responsible for actions</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td><p><bold><0.0001</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Yes</p></td><td><p>45 (38.8)</p></td><td><p>11 (14.5)</p></td><td><p>32 (86.5)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> No. no official holder</p></td><td><p>69 (61.2)</p></td><td><p>65 (85.5)</p></td><td><p>5 (13.5)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Permanent consultation mechanism</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td><p><bold><0.0001</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Yes</p></td><td><p>32 (28.3)</p></td><td><p>6 (8.0)</p></td><td><p>25 (69.4)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> No</p></td><td><p>81 (71.7)</p></td><td><p>69 (92.0)</p></td><td><p>11 (30.6)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>Missing data</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>1</italic></p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p><bold>If yes</bold>, which group? (several answers possible)</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> General population</p></td><td><p>21 (15)</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Specific groups</p></td><td><p>15 (10.7)</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Managers</p></td><td><p>21 (15.0)</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Municipal employees</p></td><td><p>17 (12.1)</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Public partners</p></td><td><p>14 (10.0)</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Community partners</p></td><td><p>19 (13.6)</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Private partners</p></td><td><p>6 (4.3)</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Others (people with disabilities 2; Consensus-building Table 1)</p></td><td><p>3 (2.1)</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>How actions are determined</bold> (multiple responses possible)</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Internal municipal process</p></td><td><p>48 (34.3)</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>27</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> External municipal process</p></td><td><p>13 (9.3)</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> No specific municipal process</p></td><td><p>53 (37.9)</p></td><td><p>50</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Other</p></td><td><p>11 (7.9)</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>If municipal process, who is involved in the development</bold> (multiple responses possible)</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> General population</p></td><td><p>16 (11.4)</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Specific groups</p></td><td><p>27 (19.3)</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> People with disabilities</p></td><td><p>16 (11.4)</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Seniors</p></td><td><p>6 (4.30</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>24</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Significant others</p></td><td><p>42 (30.0)</p></td><td><p>12</p></td><td><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Managers</p></td><td><p>31 (22.1)</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Employees Others; specify (committees. councillors. mayor)</p></td><td><p>10 (7.1)</p></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Use of training</bold> (guides, tools)</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td><p><bold><0.0001</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Yes</p></td><td><p>26 (23.9)</p></td><td><p>10 (13.5)</p></td><td><p>16 (48.5)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> No</p></td><td><p>83 (76.1)</p></td><td><p>64 (86.5)</p></td><td><p>17 (51.5)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>Missing data</italic></p></td><td><p><italic>31</italic></p></td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Characteristics of municipalities (<emph>n</emph> = 9 for 10 participants) involved in Phase 2.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td><p>Municipality (M) size (# of inhabitants)</p></td><td><p>Focus group date</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>M1 (2 participants)</p></td><td><p>20 000–25 000</p></td><td><p>February 28th 2020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>M2</p></td><td><p>75 000–100 000</p></td><td><p>February 28th 2020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>M3</p></td><td><p>20 000–25 000</p></td><td><p>March 13th 2020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>M4</p></td><td><p>Less than 3 000</p></td><td><p>March 13th 2020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>M5</p></td><td><p>More than 100 000</p></td><td><p>March 18th 2020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>M6</p></td><td><p>More than 100 000</p></td><td><p>March 18th 2020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>M7</p></td><td><p>More than 100 000</p></td><td><p>March 18th 2020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>M8</p></td><td><p>75 000–100 000</p></td><td><p>May 6th 2020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>M9</p></td><td><p>Less than 3 000</p></td><td><p>May 6th 2020</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193139138-16">Results from Phase 1 – Online Survey</hd> <p>When looking at the variety of training needs answered on a visual analogue scale where 0 = no need, and 10 = urgent need, most responses were in the middle of the scale – around 5–6/10 (see Table 3). A slight difference was found with greater needs expressed by larger municipalities as compared to smaller municipalities in two targeted areas of intervention, namely Safety (<emph>p</emph> = 0.04) and Recreation, sport, culture and tourism (<emph>p</emph> = 0.03). However, when looking at the cumulative top five training needs (see Table 4), Safety becomes a top three priority for smaller cities but not for larger ones. Indeed, top five priority needs for the whole sample are Needs assessment, General knowledge, Practical and organisational knowledge, Design/planning phase and Know-how, attitudes, mentalities, culture of the municipalities (see Table 4).</p> <p>Table 3. Training needs (mean ± standard deviation) answered on a visual analogue scale (0 = no need to 10 = urgent need). <emph>n</emph> varies due to missing data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td><p>Total (n = 114)</p></td><td><p>Municipalities of < 15 000 inhabitants (n = 76)</p></td><td><p>Municipalities of ≥ 15.000 inhabitants (n = 37)</p></td><td><p>p Value</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><bold>Need related to planning phases</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Needs assessment (<italic>n</italic> = 98)</p></td><td><p>5.4 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>5.3 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.6 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>0.65</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Design/planning (<italic>n</italic> = 95)</p></td><td><p>5.5 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.4 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>5.7 ± 2.7</p></td><td><p>0.27</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Operationalization/implementation (<italic>n</italic> = 89)</p></td><td><p>5.6 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.4 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.9 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>0.89</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Outcome evaluation (effects. impacts) (<italic>n</italic> = 89)</p></td><td><p>5.4 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.1 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>5.9 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>0.80</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Needs related to five indicators of inclusive access</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Accessibility of the physical environment (<italic>n</italic> = 93)</p></td><td><p>5.8 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>5.5 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>6.2 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>0.87</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Availability – Attitudes and behaviours (<italic>n</italic> = 92)</p></td><td><p>5.2 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>4.9 ± 2.6</p></td><td><p>5.8 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>0.48</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Acceptability – Knowledge and skills (<italic>n</italic> = 93)</p></td><td><p>5.6 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>5.3 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>6.2 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>0.61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Affordability – Consideration of cost (<italic>n</italic> = 88)</p></td><td><p>5.8 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.7 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>6.0 ± 2.6</p></td><td><p>0.62</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Usability by citizen users (<italic>n</italic> = 93)</p></td><td><p>5.9 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.7 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>6.3 ± 2.7</p></td><td><p>0.97</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Needs in targeted areas of intervention</bold></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p> Buildings (<italic>n</italic> = 96)</p></td><td><p>5.6 ± 2.7</p></td><td><p>5.3 ± 2.8</p></td><td><p>6.4 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>0.29</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Urban layout (<italic>n</italic> = 94)</p></td><td><p>6.0 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.5 ± 2.7</p></td><td><p>6.8 ± 2.0</p></td><td><p>0.09</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Supply (<italic>n</italic> = 91)</p></td><td><p>5.5 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>5.1 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>6.2 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>0.83</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Consultation. communication and awareness (<italic>n</italic> = 92)</p></td><td><p>5.7 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>5.4 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>6.3 ± 2.2</p></td><td><p>0.80</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Safety (<italic>n</italic> = 90)</p></td><td><p>5.8 ± 2.2</p></td><td><p>5.7 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>6.0 ± 1.7</p></td><td><p><bold>0.04</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Housing (<italic>n</italic> = 92)</p></td><td><p>5.3 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>5.0 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>6.0 ± 2.1</p></td><td><p>0.26</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Recreation. sport, culture and tourism (<italic>n</italic> = 96)</p></td><td><p>6.0 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>5.7 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>6.6 ± 1.7</p></td><td><p><bold>0.03</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Employment (<italic>n</italic> = 88)</p></td><td><p>4.7 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>4.2 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>5.8 ± 2.2</p></td><td><p>0.58</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Mobility (<italic>n</italic> = 91)</p></td><td><p>5.6 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>5.3 ± 2.4</p></td><td><p>6.3 ± 1.8</p></td><td><p>0.23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> Community life, living together and citizen participation (<italic>n</italic> = 93)</p></td><td><p>5.7 ± 2.3</p></td><td><p>5.5 ± 2.5</p></td><td><p>6.1 ± 1.8</p></td><td><p>0.11</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Prioritisation of the top five training needs in your municipality for inclusion of people with disabilities (top five are bolded).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td><p>Cumulative % choice 1 to 5</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>Municipalities of < 15 000 inhabitants (n = 76)</p></td><td><p>Municipalities of ≥ 15.000 inhabitants (n = 37)</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>General knowledge</p></td><td><p>52.8</p></td><td><p>62.5</p></td><td><p>38.1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Theoretical knowledge</bold></p></td><td><p>35.6</p></td><td><p>32.0</p></td><td><p><bold>40.0</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Practical and organisational knowledge</bold></p></td><td><p><bold>51.9</bold></p></td><td><p>46.7</p></td><td><p><bold>58.3</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Know-how, attitudes, mentalities, culture of the municipality</bold></p></td><td><p><bold>45.1</bold></p></td><td><p>28.6</p></td><td><p><bold>65.2</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Competency development with recognition</p></td><td><p>22.4</p></td><td><p>18.5</p></td><td><p>27.3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Needs assessment</bold></p></td><td><p><bold>70.8</bold></p></td><td><p><bold>70.5</bold></p></td><td><p><bold>71.4</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Design/planning</bold></p></td><td><p><bold>50.9</bold></p></td><td><p><bold>50.0</bold></p></td><td><p><bold>52.2</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Operationalization/implementation</p></td><td><p>26.5</p></td><td><p>28.6</p></td><td><p>23.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Outcome evaluation (effects. impacts)</p></td><td><p>31.3</p></td><td><p>24.0</p></td><td><p>39.1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Accessibility of the physical environment</p></td><td><p>42.1</p></td><td><p>48.5</p></td><td><p>33.3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Availability – Attitudes and behaviours</p></td><td><p>8.5</p></td><td><p>11.5</p></td><td><p>4.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Acceptability – Knowledge and skills</p></td><td><p>17.0</p></td><td><p>16.0</p></td><td><p>18.2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Affordability – Consideration of cost</p></td><td><p>32.7</p></td><td><p>41.2</p></td><td><p>19.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Usability by citizen users</p></td><td><p>36.2</p></td><td><p>41.2</p></td><td><p>29.2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Building</p></td><td><p>38.8</p></td><td><p>46.4</p></td><td><p>28.6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Urban layout</bold></p></td><td><p>41.1</p></td><td><p><bold>51.5</bold></p></td><td><p>26.1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Supply</p></td><td><p>13.3</p></td><td><p>20.8</p></td><td><p>4.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Consultation. communication and awareness</p></td><td><p>21.3</p></td><td><p>15.4</p></td><td><p>28.6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>Safety</bold></p></td><td><p>34.5</p></td><td><p><bold>52.9</bold></p></td><td><p>4.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Housing</p></td><td><p>6.8</p></td><td><p>8.3</p></td><td><p>5.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Recreation. sport, culture and tourism</p></td><td><p>31.5</p></td><td><p>43.8</p></td><td><p>13.6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Employment</p></td><td><p>9.1</p></td><td><p>12.5</p></td><td><p>5.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Mobility</p></td><td><p>25.5</p></td><td><p>40.0</p></td><td><p>4.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Community life, living together and citizen participation</p></td><td><p>32.7</p></td><td><p>44.1</p></td><td><p>14.3</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193139138-17">Results from Phase 2 – Focus Groups</hd> <p>Five essential themes emerged from the focus group discussion. The first three themes 1) Acceptability, 2) Accessibility and 3) Concertation, communication and awareness raising provide insight on the context of the municipality. The fourth theme 4) Training needs of municipal actors is directly related to the main research objective. Participants were reacting to the Phase 1 survey results and discussed around prioritised training needs. It is comprised of four subthemes: 4a) Tools to collect and analyse populational needs, 4b) Knowledge and skills relating to the concept of accessibility, 4c) Methodology for planning, implementing and evaluating action plans and 4d) Disability awareness. The last theme 5) Training format is around pedagogical preferences.</p> <p>The few differences mentioned between municipalities of different sizes were mainly related to context. For example, municipality of smaller sizes mentioned explicitly acceptability as a challenge, being in a context where there is often not one individual in charge as illustrated by this quote <emph>Community assistance. It meets some of these needs. But we don't have anyone dedicated full time to the disabled access committee, it's a committee that meets monthly. (M1, 20 000–25 000)</emph>. <bold>Acceptability</bold> included two subthemes: 1a) <bold>Values and beliefs</bold> which refers to training received by municipal staff to gain knowledge, skills and attitudes (including self-efficacy) about the reality of person with disabilities. <emph>For example, we have training for everyone on addiction problems, attitude, harassment, behaviour at work, all that. (M2, 75 000–100 000)</emph>. It included as well as the support provided by the municipality to selected community groups on the reality of person with disabilities.</p> <p> <emph>We have a bit of trouble bridging the gap and adapting our services to people with special mental health needs, and we know how many autistic people who are currently young adults and children. These people will grow old in our environment. (M2, 75 000–100 000)</emph>.</p> <p>The second subtheme was 1b) <bold>Competencies</bold> which refers to competency training received by municipal staff as well as support provided by the municipality to selected community groups to develop competencies. <emph>At our day camp, the instructors are trained according to the kids that we're going to, that are going to register, that have specific disabilities, depending on the disability, I think we're going to have a link here, with a health organization, community organizers and all that. (M3, 20 000–25 000)</emph>. They mentioned especially appreciating involvement of community organisations as a support for their contribution to an inclusive environment as well as the possibility to network with other municipalities to prevent from reinventing the wheel. <emph>I am lucky in my milieu to work with organizations that are very proactive, very dynamic, so that helps a lot</emph>. (M3, 20 000–25 000).</p> <p> <bold>Accessibility</bold> also emerged as an important contextual challenge but for municipalities of all sizes where despite the good will of all involved actors, the final product/adaptation was too often inadequate, which speaks into the complexity of an inclusive environment and the importance of collaboration and good planning. Accessibility was described according to five subthemes: 2a) <bold>Location</bold>: choosing the location of the elements in the municipality and locating the elements on a map. <emph>You know, I've already been tricked with an arena, you know, 'You don't need to see the plans, it's okay, you don't know this stuff anyway'. And then proudly showing me afterwards, 'Look, we've got adapted cabins in the toilet'. Well, yes, but the door, there's no press button on it, and it opens, you know, the wheelchair always has to get to your adapted toilet, you know, and 'Oh yeah, we didn't see that'. (M8, 75 000–100 000)</emph>. The second subtheme was 2b) <bold>Time</bold>: modification of a time slot. <emph>For example, in [name of a municipality], there is a meeting that seems very interesting, well it takes a day to go to [name of a municipality], at 10 hours by car which I haven't been to yet, so I don't have much time to talk with colleagues from other municipalities. (M3, 20 000–25 000)</emph>. The third subtheme was 2c) <bold>Norms (physical)</bold>: redesigning a structure to meet the required standards, improving access, adding an element to an existing structure, evaluating a structure as illustrated by this quote <emph>We have a lot of obstacles, the doors are very heavy, people have difficulty opening them. As I told you earlier, the toilets, the sinks were so big that we blocked the turning area, the children couldn't even operate the motion detector to wash their hands, their arms aren't long enough. So, that's it. You should imagine the costs, it was 7 sinks that we have to replace. (M2, 75 000–100 000)</emph> whereas the fourth subtheme was 2d) <bold>Norms (Literacy)</bold>: recommendations for accessible training such as written, illustrated, digital or oral messages (including readability, comprehensibility, varied formats, web accessibility, oral communication). <emph>I am also of the opinion that if our infrastructure is not adapted are not accessible, no matter how much pressure I put on my colleagues in the cultural sector to do more and more accessible activities, but the facilities are not accessible. We have libraries that are not even accessible. (M6, More than 100 000)</emph>. Finally, the fifth subtheme was 2e) <bold>Potential adaptability</bold> referring to the capacity of the environment to allow for possible adaptations as illustrated by this quote <emph>And that's precisely why people from remote regions, you know, it's more complicated to travel, it's more expensive and often, the municipalities, we're limited to one conference or one training session per year. (M8, 75 000–100 000)</emph>.</p> <p>Consultation mechanism and communication was perceived as a continual contextual challenge and emerged as a cross-cutting theme for municipalities of all sizes. As such, <bold>Concertation, communication and awareness raising</bold> as a third theme included the organisation culture <emph>What is missing, I think, is a type of shared and transversal framework, in the sense that it must not be based on individuals, because it is too fragile. (M8, 75 000–100 000)</emph>, interaction and communication within and across municipalities <emph>I want to consult them on a subject X, I send it to my gang of, to my advisory committee in the hope that they will survey their users, but I'm not always sure that the information gets through. As well, when I want to consult them as when I want to inform them of a new service or something that we are putting in place. So, I always have this little light that goes on and says, "Mmh, I'm not sure that it goes down to the person with disabilities. (M7, More than 100 000)</emph> or <emph>Specifically consult action plans on what is done elsewhere or make the link via the OPHQ [Provincial Office for Disability], but, it's certain that, for me, often, to do, you know, to do, you know, I, it's simpler not to reinvent the wheel, of what is done elsewhere, to know a little, well, where it can be applied. (M3, 20 000–25 000)</emph> coupled with the challenge of staff turnover <emph>If there is a staff turnover in any given layer, whether it's in public works or anywhere in the municipalities, well, there are things that, you know, there is information that flows out and we just don't know it. (M9, Less than 3 000)</emph>.</p> <p>The four subthemes of theme 4 which is directly relating to main study objectives are again similar across municipalities of different sizes. In subtheme 4a) <bold>tools to collect and analyse populational needs</bold>, participants insisted on their needs to be better equipped with tools to collect and analyse the needs of the population they deserve <emph>The issue of disability remains less invested and we are in fact asked to be better equipped to ensure that citizens with disabilities are taken into account when needs are analyzed. (M5, More than 100 000)</emph> to be able to better prioritise their own annual action plan <emph>To tell the difficulties, the obstacles encountered and, because that's when we realize what the real needs are in our municipality. If we had this kind of centralized portal where it is possible in the municipal world to disseminate this information, where 'If you have obstacles, call this number, someone will receive your call, the matter will be taken into account'. (M1, 20 000–25 000)</emph>. In subtheme 4b) <bold>knowledge and skills relating to the concept of accessibility</bold>, participants mentioned their needs to gain knowledge and skills to be able to better navigate the key concepts of universal design as illustrated by the three following quotes: <emph>I don't know the Code at all, at all, and I'm not able to read a plan, after that, to go, not to debate about it, but to try to speak the same language as the developer of the public space, well, you know, it's going to be difficult and, you know, often, the tendency is ''Yes, yes, we've made it accessible". (M8, 75 000–100 000)</emph> or <emph>To have practical training on the essential elements of universal design applied to the development of the enabling environment. (M7, More than 100 000)</emph> and <emph>What kind of support can we have so that once it's finished it's been modified and refurbished or we've met some needs, but, we've also met everyone's needs. (M1, 20 000–25 000)</emph>. The lack of evaluation of the effects and impacts was reiterated in subtheme 4c) <bold>Methodology for planning, implementing and evaluating action plans</bold> through the need of a training focusing on best methods to plan, implement and evaluate action plans for inclusive municipalities as they tend to get lost with all the resources available to them: <emph>It's more theoretical knowledge of what exists as an option because I have to tell you that we get a bit lost in the reference documents that there are several sources to indicate the standards of the norms, of the, on the installations, on the equipment to be more accessible, for universal design, and, but, we haven't managed to find a source, um, we haven't managed to disentangle ourselves in all these sources. There's a lot, it's voluminous. And then, um, to be trained in this, to be accompanied. (M1, 20 000–25 000)</emph> or <emph>There are a lot of guides, criteria, especially on accommodation and mobility I think, but less on programming and disabilities. (M5, More than 100 000)</emph> and <emph>To evaluate the outcome, but also to prioritize the areas where we will start to carry out improvement work. (M7, More than 100 000)</emph>. Finally, subtheme 4c) <bold>disability awareness</bold>, although it might not be considered as a training per say, was mentioned across all focus groups to eventually change the organisational culture and staff attitudes and proactivity towards inclusive municipalities <emph>People lack knowledge about what is meant by a person with a disability. So, at that point, it's clear that if you don't really know what you're talking about, it's difficult to have a good identification. (M5, More than 100 000)</emph> or <emph>That is, if we integrate them all the time, then we can have more knowledge about what they are experiencing. (M9, Less than 3 000)</emph> or <emph>In terms of intellectual disability, you know, I find that there are a lot of issues that are perhaps a little less well documented or that we have fewer tools. (M5, More than 100 000)</emph> and finally, <emph>Yes, well, I would like to insist on the word demystification because you often use the term "training" and it is indeed a great need, but the committee also talked about the need to simply demystify the notions of accessibility. (M1, 20 000–25 000)</emph>. As the facilitator summarised participants' thought '<emph>awareness remains essential as people don't know that they don't know</emph>'.</p> <p>We took advantage of these focus groups discussion to explore participants' pedagogical preferences relating to the training format (theme 5). Even if the focus groups were conducted before or at the very beginning of the pandemic which speeded up the use of the virtual as a mean to meet and communicate, all participants insisted on the importance of offering the training in a variety of format, in a <bold>hybrid mode both in-person and asynchronous</bold> (subtheme 5a) <emph>This means that it could perhaps be online without necessarily being interactive. So we could have more accessibility. (M1, 20 000–25 000)</emph>. Virtual format is perceived to decrease the costs and to increase access to training and especially in a Province with a large geographical area as illustrated by this quote <emph>As a remote location, anything that is going to be on the web is going to be a winner for sure and I agree on a formula that would be at the time the employee decides. (M7, More than 100 000)</emph>. In-person remains the best pedagogical approach to allow for interactions <emph>It would be really gathering all my people for example, in the, in the community room and projecting on a wall, well, not projecting on a wall, projecting on the infrastructure. (M4, Less than 3 000)</emph> or <emph>It's true that online training is not the best, I would even say that it would be interesting if, if there were training to be given, it could be travelled around Quebec, depending on the people concerned, to facilitate the transmission of information and the transport of people. (M3, 20 000–25 000)</emph>, but participants also valued the asynchronous mode given their context characterised by a high turnover of personnel. Participants insisted on the importance of <bold>including the reality of person with disabilities</bold> (subtheme 5b) <emph>Having real life stories gives authenticity to the training. (M4, Less than 3 000)</emph> or <emph>They make good allies, so if the training could illustrate this with concrete examples of people who would come and give testimonies and so on, I think that would be a real plus. (M6</emph>, More than 100 000) and <emph>But what people really appreciated was the contact with persons with disabilities, which was a testimony of their daily life, from the moment they get up and you know everything they do. And it really humanized things a bit and reminded them that it's a question of rights and, you know, social participation. (M5</emph>, More than 100 000). They also highlighted the importance of the <bold>experience of other municipalities</bold> for greater credibility and which could be adjusted to their own local reality <emph>That there be a kind of general template to which we could add local elements such as testimonies or explanations of certain solutions that the city already has. (M1, 20 000–25 000)</emph>. In other words, they highly value concrete, authentic examples to illustrate theory and concept as part of the training content. When asked what they thought of a systematic assessment post-training or of a <bold>certification</bold> (subtheme 5c), most could see the added value but did not perceive this as a requirement <emph>When we did the training with Société Logique, which gave a certificate, well, for our professionals, they included this in their continuous education. (M6</emph>, More than 100 000) or <emph>If we decide that, well, for the city, it's compulsory to take, I don't know, such and such a level of module or you know the first two modules and everything. Well, then, the attestation comes into meaning because people are going to want to, you know, have some kind of proof that they have completed it. (M5</emph>, More than 100 000) and when the facilitator asked: And the added value of having a certificate, a kind of attestation that comes with a quiz? Is there an added value or not so much, in your reality? <emph>Not that much</emph> (M9, Less than 3 000) and <emph>It's interesting. But I wouldn't count on that. You know, I wouldn't spend much time developing that, necessarily. There are municipalities, I think, that will be proud to put it forward, to display it. There are others that it might be less valued</emph>. (M8, 75 000–100 000) or <emph>But we talked about the possibility of having a scheme, a framework and a basic training course, you know, for the entry, intermediate and so on. So, to follow the sort of chart of where I am in the acquisition of my skills, that's interesting, I think. (M8, 75 000–100 000)</emph>. Finally, they insisted on a basic training for new personnel <emph>It's a personal rotation. I'm thinking of our part-time auxiliaries in the summer whom we also want to raise awareness. (M1, 20 000–25 000)</emph> and because of high staff turnover <emph>To say that when a new employee joins, it becomes part of the basic mandatory training, to have some kind of training. (M9, Less than 3 000)</emph>. However, they also insisted of the need for advanced training <emph>The main stakeholders in our municipality are clearly our councillors and then we, the employees, who are directly in contact with the population. So, I think that it would be relevant to offer this training, and then perhaps even to push it and perhaps offer it to the population. (M4, Less than 3 000)</emph> and <emph>It depends on the themes in the sense that everything that involves a change of culture can affect an elected official as much as someone from the public works sector, but afterwards, when we arrive at the acquisition of basic knowledge, if we make it simple enough for absolutely everyone. (M8, 75 000–100 000)</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-18">Discussion</hd> <p>The coming into force of new legislative requirements by the Government of Quebec regarding the elimination of barriers on the territory of municipalities has created new needs while revealing the gap between their knowledge and the issues they now face in terms of transformation and inclusive development. The expected annual response takes the form of an action plan (Office des Personnes Handicapées du Québec, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref50">26</reflink>]) illustrating the areas of activity and the actions planned to be realised in the following year to eliminate barriers on their territory. The action plan formula is broader than simply the issues related to barrier-free travel, which corresponds roughly to the first phase of the desire to make municipal infrastructures accessible that has prevailed since the 1990s. In fact, a scoping review (unpublished) realised as preliminary work for this study has allowed us to identify a fairly impressive body of guides and materials of all kinds developed, here and elsewhere, that reflect this movement; materials that remain in more than one respect quite theoretical and very much focused on the physical dimension of accessibility of the built environment. This observation was also noted in the discussion groups, as the needs that emerged involve other types of problems such as knowledge of the various realities of person with disabilities.</p> <p>Indeed, in the development of action plans, the issues go beyond knowledge on the topic of the physical access as the lack of knowledge of the reality of person with intellectual disabilities or mental health problems, for examples, is a major concern. Actually, dimensions such as procurement (the purchase of goods and services), hiring or communications are also targeted by municipal actions. This does not mean, however, that everything has been taken care of, such as the mobility of certain populations with disabilities or the need for knowledge and tools (Gamache, Routhier, Morales, et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref51">15</reflink>]; Gamache, Routhier, Mortenson, et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>]). These are elements that were mentioned in the focus groups, regardless of the size of the municipality, giving rise to a dominant pattern of practical rather than theoretical knowledge needs.</p> <p>As such, the reported needs were related to experiential knowledge, rather than theoretical knowledge. This need for a learning mechanism is consistent with other studies where participants wanted concrete and contextualised knowledge (Popper & Lipshitz, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref53">31</reflink>]). Although there are many training courses available for municipalities in Quebec, it seems that they do not meet their training needs when it comes to the planning and implementation of action plans. In addition, important needs were raised concerning the evaluation of the achievement of the objectives and the effects and ultimate impacts of this plan on the actual elimination of barriers. Organisational constraints, particularly in terms of available resources and time, mean that a great deal of importance is attached to the transfer of knowledge concerning universal accessibility between municipalities, among others. Insofar, as this knowledge is partly aimed at transforming practices within municipalities regarding the consideration of universal accessibility, the results of a study with architects present interesting elements by focusing on descriptive information, an understanding of user needs and the built environment as components of effective communication (Mosca et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]). This is in line with a concern expressed in the focus groups about pedagogical approaches that should be more adapted to their context (including employment bodies) and constraints.</p> <p>One important issue that emerged from these discussions, and which takes us somewhat away from the sphere of knowledge, is that of the political and participatory processes that underly the development, implementation and evaluation of an action plan in the Disability field aiming equalisation of social participation of citizens without and with impairments and disabilities. This implies a significant participation of citizens with disabilities and their organisations, a participation that is very strongly encouraged, notably by government authorities in Quebec (Office des Personnes Handicapées du Québec, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref55">26</reflink>]) and as required by the co-designing process of the Disability Rights Movement (Nothing about us, without us) of the International Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]). Although this Convention was ratified by Canada and Quebec governments in 2010, from the point of view of municipal actors in this study, a lot remains to be learned and improved about this democratic process anchored in human rights. This participation sometimes appears to some as a smoke and mirrors approach, the results of which are uncertain, particularly regarding expectations that remain unfulfilled, but which constitute an essential component of a process of transformation of the municipal social fabric to be more inclusive.</p> <p>Finally, the issues of staff turnover raised by participants invite questions about the organisation's (municipality's) learning strategies. Should individual learning be favoured or organisational learning? Thus, in order to foster organisational learning in a learning organisation culture to maximise and sustain learning potential, organisational mechanisms could be implemented in the municipality. They represent the routines and processes through which an organisation acquires, assimilates, transforms and retains knowledge with a view to using it in the future to produce dynamic organisational capabilities (Belkhodja et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-19">Strength and Limitations</hd> <p>One major strength of this study lies in the triangulation of data between the survey and focus groups and the iterative process throughout the study through team meetings with partners who are the knowledge-users. As improving social participation of person in disabling situations should not be the concern solely of cities of 15 000 and more but of all municipalities also with smaller populations disseminated on the large territory of the province of Quebec, this study is the first one to include all municipalities for which a mandatory action plan is required by law or not. The new data collected on training needs by this participatory research with Municipal partners organisations is robust for the development of inclusive training courses which will be sensitive to all municipal actors.</p> <p>Phase 2 of this study took place in the pandemic period and the research team had to adopt a full virtual methodology and in a climate of sanitary, but also social crises. The adaptability of the research team and participants can be qualified of positive, and often innovative solutions were found out in collegiality.</p> <p>Nevertheless, this pandemic context deprived participants as well as research team and knowledge-users (municipal partners) from direct contact in face-to-face interaction, which made the data collection and organisation of meetings more unpersonal, rigid and of a somewhat increased complexity.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-20">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study aimed to identify priority training needs among municipalities to support them in the implementation of effective action plans to improve the social participation of person with disabilities in Quebec municipalities. Despite only municipalities with ≥15 000 inhabitants are legally required to produce an annual action plan to reduce barriers encountered by person with disabilities, we were also interested in documenting the training needs of smaller municipalities. It turned out that no major differences in needs to prioritise emerged when contrasting larger and smaller size's municipalities. Results highlighted a variety of training needs, including the importance of prioritising practical contextualised knowledge anchored in authentic experience.</p> <hd id="AN0193139138-21">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0193139138-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abd Samad, N. A., Said, I., & Abdul Rahim, A. (2018). Planning Accessibility Strategies and Connectivity for Malaysian Urban Built Environment. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 256, 367 – 377. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30371497">www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30371497</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref20" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andrade, I. F., & Elye, V. (2012). Assessment method of accessibility conditions: How to make public buildings accessible? Work, 41 Suppl 1, 3774 – 3780. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0675-3774</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref11" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ask, L. N. (2016). Rogaland County Council and Universal Design. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 229, 78 – 84. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27534289">www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27534289</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref57" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Belkhodja, O., Amara, N., Landry, R., & Ouimet, M. (2007). The extent and organizational determinants of research utilization in Canadian health services organizations. Science Communication, 28 (3), 377 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006298486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boucher, N., Dumont, I., Fougeyrollas, P., Ruel, J., Moreau, A. C., & Duplessis, A. (2018). Perspective d'analyse comparée des effets des plans d'action à l'égard des personnes handicapées sur les territoires des villes de Sherbrooke, de Trois-Rivières, Victoriaville et de Cowansville, 2011-2015. Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref42" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Breen, R. L. (2006). A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30 (3), 463 – 475. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260600927575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref12" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chappe, R., & Dumont, R. (2019). Conserver son pouvoir d'agir au travail en milieu ordinaire, avec un handicap psychique (pp. 58 – 67). Revues et ouvrages en sciences humaines et sociales.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref21" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Costa, A. L., Coura, P. V., Gomes, M. M., Peregrino, Y. R., Sarmento, B. R., & Sousa, R. A. (2012). Ergonomics issues in conceiving an accessible project. Work, 41 Suppl 1, 1403 – 1408. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0331-1403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Drobi, M. (2019). Une réponse accompagnée pour tous : une démarche qui met le pouvoir d'agir au service de la continuité des parcours. Pratiques en santé mentale, 65e année (2), 27 – 35. https://doi.org/10.3917/psm.192.0027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, P. J., Roberts, I., Clarke, M. J., Diguiseppi, C., Wentz, R., Kwan, I., Cooper, R., Felix, L. M., & Pratap, S. (2009). Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews, 2010 (1), MR000008. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fougeyrollas, P. (2010). La funambule, le fil et la toile : transformations réciproques du sens du handicap. Presses de l'Université Laval.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fougeyrollas, P. (2020). International Classification: Human Development Model - Disability Creation Process (HDM-DCP). International Network on Disability Creation Process. https://mhavie.ca/boutique/en/documents-pph/classification-internationale-mdh-pph-2018-p114c91/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fougeyrollas, P., Boucher, N., Edwards, G., Grenier, Y., & Noreau, L. (2019). The Disability Creation Process Model: A Comprehensive Explanation of Disabling Situations as a Guide to Developing Policy and Service Programs. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 21 (1), 25 – 37. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fougeyrollas, P., Fiset, D., Dumont, I., Grenier, Y., Boucher, N., & Gamache, S. (2019). Réflexion critique sur la notion d'accessibilité universelle et articulation conceptuelle pour le développement d'environnements inclusifs. Revue Développement Humain, Handicap Et Changement Social/Journal of Human Development, Disability, and Social Change, 25 (1), 161 – 175. https://doi.org/10.7202/1085774ar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gamache, S., Routhier, F., Morales, E., Vandersmissen, M.-H., Boucher, N., McFadyen, B. J., & Noreau, L. (2020). Methodological Insights into the Scientific Development of Design Guidelines for Accessible Urban Pedestrian Infrastructure. Journal of Urban Technology, 27 (1), 87 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2019.1632677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gamache, S., Routhier, F., Mortenson, W. B., Miller, W. C., & Martin Ginis, K. A. (2020). Objective evaluation of architectural obstacles encountered in two Canadian urban settings by mobility device users. Journal of Accessibility & Design for All, 10 (1), 98 – 123. https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v10i1.186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gharebaghi, A., Mostafavi, M.-A., Chavoshi, S., Edwards, G., & Fougeyrollas, P. (2018). The Role of Social Factors in the Accessibility of Urban Areas for People with Motor Disabilities. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7 (4), 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7040131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, J., Busby, K., & O'Shaughnessy, T. (2018). Good Intentions in Universal Design: A Global Challenge for Higher Education. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 256, 594 – 601. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30371420">www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30371420</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Imrie, R. (2004). Demystifying disability: A review of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26 (3), 287 – 305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00391.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15 (3), 261 – 266. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, J. A., King, M. J., Edwards, N., Hair, S. A., Cheang, S., Pearson, A., & Coelho, S. (2018). Addressing transport safety and accessibility for people with a disability in developing countries: A formative evaluation of the Journey Access Tool in Cambodia. Global Health Action, 11 (1), 1538658. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2018.1538658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, D., & Krueger, R. (1997). The Focus Group Kit. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosca, E. I., Herssens, J., Rebecchi, A., & Capolongo, S. (2019). Inspiring architects in the application of design for all: Knowledge transfer methods and tools. Journal of Accessibility & Design for All, 9 (1), 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v9i1.147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Disability Authority. (2014). Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. Retrieved February 11, 2015 from <ulink href="http://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/">http://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nijs, G., & Heylighen, A. (2015). Turning disability experience into expertise in assessing building accessibility: A contribution to articulating disability epistemology. Alter, 9 (2), 144 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2014.12.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office des Personnes Handicapées du Québec. (2018). Guide pour l'élaboration du plan d'action annuel à l'égard des personnes handicapées. Secrétariat général, L'Office. https://<ulink href="http://www.ophq.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/centre%5fdocumentaire/Guides/RAP%5fGuide%5fPA%5fMO%5f2018.pdf">www.ophq.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/centre%5fdocumentaire/Guides/RAP%5fGuide%5fPA%5fMO%5f2018.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2021). L'analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales (5e (ed.) ed.). Armand Collin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paksoy Erbaydar, N., Karadag Caman, O., & Cilingiroglu, N. (2013). How do municipality employees in Ankara approach persons with disabilities? Disability and Health Journal, 6 (4), 391 – 398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.04.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 35 (1), 29 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ, 320 (7227), 114 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning - Mechanisms, culture, and feasibility. Management Learning, 31 (2), 181 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507600312003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poupart, J., Deslauriers, J.-P., Groulx, L.-H., Laperrière, A., Mayer, R., & Pires, A. (1997). La recherche qualitative: Enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. G.M. Éditeur.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Publications Québec. (2005). Loi assurant l'exercice des droits des personnes handicapées en vue de leur intégration scolaire, professionnelle et sociale. Gouvernement du Québec. Retrieved September 30, 2021 from <ulink href="http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/showversion/cs/E-20.1?code=se:61%5f1&pointInTime=20160718#20160718">http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/showversion/cs/E-20.1?code=se:61%5f1&pointInTime=20160718#20160718</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (2004). International Day of Disabled Persons 2004. Sept 30. 2021 https://<ulink href="http://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/international-day-of-persons-with-disabilities-3-december/international-day-of-disabled-persons-2004-nothing-about-us-without-us.html">www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/international-day-of-persons-with-disabilities-3-december/international-day-of-disabled-persons-2004-nothing-about-us-without-us.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van der Maren, J. M. (1996). Méthodes de recherche pour l'éducation (2e ed.). Presses de l'Université de Montréal et de Boeck. <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/1866/4688">http://hdl.handle.net/1866/4688</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watchorn, V., Grant, C., Tucker, R., Hitch, D., Frawley, P., Ang, S., Aedy, K., & Gohil, A. (2018). Evaluating Universal Design in Built Environments - a Scoping Project. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 256, 689 – 695. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30371432">www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30371432</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watt, D. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: The value of reflexivity. The Qualitative Report, 12 (1), 82 – 101. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> WHO. (2011). World Report on Disability 2011. Retrieved September 30, 2021 from https://<ulink href="http://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability">www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolley, H. (2012). Now Being Social: The Barrier of Designing Outdoor Play Spaces for Disabled Children. Children & Society, 27 (6), 448 – 458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00464.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yip, J., Herbane, H., Poldma, T., & Rousseau, J. (2015). Exploration des cadres de construction des rampes d'accessibilite. Canadian Journal on Aging. La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 34 (4), 457 – 470. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980815000161</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Annie Rochette; P. Vermeulen; N. Boucher; N. Roussel; N. Simard; G. Grondin-Gravel; G. Corbeil; A. Morissette; M. Lamontagne and P. Fougeyrollas</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref56"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1504204
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Perceived Training Needs of Municipal Stakeholders in Quebec (Canada) Relating to Universal Design Action Plans
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Annie+Rochette%22">Annie Rochette</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0189-0987">0000-0002-0189-0987</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22P%2E+Vermeulen%22">P. Vermeulen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8886-5778">0000-0001-8886-5778</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22N%2E+Boucher%22">N. Boucher</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0778-6152">0000-0002-0778-6152</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22N%2E+Roussel%22">N. Roussel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22N%2E+Simard%22">N. Simard</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22G%2E+Grondin-Gravel%22">G. Grondin-Gravel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22G%2E+Corbeil%22">G. Corbeil</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22A%2E+Morissette%22">A. Morissette</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22M%2E+Lamontagne%22">M. Lamontagne</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22P%2E+Fougeyrollas%22">P. Fougeyrollas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9794-2720">0000-0001-9794-2720</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Disability%2C+Development+and+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Disability, Development and Education</i></searchLink>. 2026 73(4):818-836.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Needs%22">Educational Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Municipalities%22">Municipalities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accessibility+%28for+Disabled%29%22">Accessibility (for Disabled)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1034912X.2025.2467355
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1034-912X<br />1465-346X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Quebec (Canada) municipalities with ≥15 000 inhabitants are legally required to produce an annual action plan to reduce barriers encountered by person with disabilities. Actual tools for universal design are diverse and not harmonised between cities, leading to important training needs. We thus aimed to identify priority training needs among municipalities of all sizes. We use a two-phase sequential descriptive design starting with an online survey (Phase 1) anchored into dimensions of inclusive access followed by focus group discussions (Phase 2). Descriptive statistics and a semi-inductive content analysis for qualitative data were used. A total of n = 114 municipalities responded to Phase 1 including nearly half (37/78) of municipalities with a population ≥15 000 inhabitants. The top five priority needs were 1) Needs assessment, 2) General knowledge, 3) Practical and organisational knowledge, 4) Design/planning phase and 5) Know-how, attitudes, mentalities, culture of the municipalities. Participants (n = 10) to Phase 2 insisted on their needs for practical knowledge, including authentic, contextualised examples coming from other cities. No major differences in needs to prioritise emerged when contrasting larger and smaller size's municipalities. Results highlighted a variety of training needs, including the importance of prioritising practical contextualised knowledge anchored in authentic experience.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1504204
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1504204
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1034912X.2025.2467355
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 818
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stakeholders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Municipalities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accessibility (for Disabled)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Perceived Training Needs of Municipal Stakeholders in Quebec (Canada) Relating to Universal Design Action Plans
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Annie Rochette
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: P. Vermeulen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: N. Boucher
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: N. Roussel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: N. Simard
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: G. Grondin-Gravel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: G. Corbeil
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: A. Morissette
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: M. Lamontagne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: P. Fougeyrollas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1034-912X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-346X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1