SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ergoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3

Perceived Accessibility and Associated Factors Among Adults in Türkiye: Age, Gender, Body Mass Index, Disability Status, and Regional Differences

Türkiye'de Yetişkin Bireylerde Erişilebilirlik Algısı ve İlişkili Faktörler: Yaş, Cinsiyet, Vücut Kitle İndeksi, Engel Durumu ve Bölgesel Farklılıklar

Mesut Arslan(BİTLİS EREN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, FİZYOTERAPİ VE REHABİLİTASYON BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-4779-2442
Sefa Haktan Hatık(SİNOP ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TÜRKELİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU, SAĞLIK BAKIM HİZMETLERİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-0517-4600
Pages
208–217
Publication Date
2026-09-17
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Low access to cultural services and disadvantages in eastern regions and rural areas suggest that policy development efforts in these areas may be beneficial.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To evaluate perceived accessibility across service types among adults in Türkiye and examine whether it differs by age, gender, body mass index (BMI), disability, and region.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study used Turkish General Social Survey (TGSS) 2024 data.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Low access to cultural services and disadvantages in eastern regions and rural areas suggest that policy development efforts in these areas may be beneficial.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Mimari Erişilebilirlik · Engelli Kişiler · Algı.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate perceived accessibility across service types among adults in Türkiye and examine whether it differs by age, gender, body mass index (BMI), disability, and region. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study used Turkish General Social Survey (TGSS) 2024 data. After data cleaning, data from 788 adults were analyzed. Perceived accessibility was assessed using five-point Likert-type questions across five domains: grocery, green spaces, public transport, healthcare, and culture. Independent variables were age, gender, BMI, disability, and region. Since data were not normally distributed, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were used. Results: Participants reported highest median values for grocery (Median=4.00) and lowest for culture (Median=3.00). Significant age differences were found in cultural access (p=0.005) and total score (p=0.025); middle-aged adults had highest scores, older adults lowest. Individuals with disabilities had significantly lower scores in public transport, culture, and total score. Accessibility scores increased with higher urbanization (p<0.001). Western regions had highest scores, eastern regions lowest (p<0.001). Conclusion: Perceived accessibility varies by service type and is influenced by disability, urbanization, and region. Low access to cultural services and disadvantages in eastern regions and rural areas suggest that policy development efforts in these areas may be beneficial.

Özet

Amaç: Türkiye'de yetişkinlerin erişilebilirlik algısının farklı hizmet türlerine göre değerlendirilmesi ve bu algının yaş, cinsiyet, vücut kitle indeksi (VKİ), engel durumu ve bölge açısından farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığının incelenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kesitsel tipteki bu çalışmanın veri kaynağını Türkiye Genel Sosyal Saha Araştırması (TGSS) 2024 veri seti oluşturmaktadır. Veri temizleme sonrasında 788 yetişkin bireyin verisi analiz edilmiştir. Erişilebilirlik algısı, beşli Likert tipi sorularla market, yeşil alan, toplu taşıma, sağlık ve kültür hizmetlerinde değerlendirilmiştir. Bağımsız değişkenler yaş, cinsiyet, VKİ, engel durumu ve bölgedir. Veriler normal dağılım göstermediğinden Mann-Whitney U ve Kruskal-Wallis H testleri kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar: Katılımcılar en yüksek ortanca değeri market hizmetlerinde (Ortanca=4,00), en düşük kültürel hizmetlerde (Ortanca=3,00) bildirmiştir. Yaş grupları arasında kültür erişimi (p=0,005) ve toplam puanda (p=0,025) anlamlı fark bulunmuş; orta yaşlılar en yüksek, ileri yaşlılar en düşük puanları almıştır. Engel/hastalık durumu olan bireylerde toplu taşıma, kültür ve toplam puanda anlamlı derecede düşük puanlar elde edilmiştir. Kentleşme arttıkça tüm alanlarda puanlar yükselmiştir (p<0,001). Batı bölgeleri en yüksek, doğu bölgeleri en düşük puanları almıştır (p<0,001). Tartışma: Erişilebilirlik algısı hizmet türüne göre farklılaşmakta olup, özellikle engel/hastalık durumu, kentleşme ve bölgeden etkilenmektedir. Kültürel hizmetlere erişimin düşük olması ve doğu bölgeleri ile kırsal alanlardaki dezavantajlı durum, bu alanlara yönelik politika geliştirme çalışmalarının yararlı olabileceğini düşündürmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Arslan, M., Hatık, S. H. (2026). Perceived Accessibility and Associated Factors Among Adults in Türkiye: Age, Gender, Body Mass Index, Disability Status, and Regional Differences. Ergoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.30720/ered.1924800

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Allerton, L., & Emerson, E. (2012). British adults with chronic health conditions or impairments face significant barriers to accessing health services. Public Health, 126(11), 920-927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.08.003
  2. Baier, N., Pieper, J., Schweikart, J., Busse, R., & Vogt, V. (2020). Capturing modelled and perceived spatial access to ambulatory health care services in rural and urban areas in Germany. Social Science & Medicine, 265, 113328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113328
  3. Braçe, O., Garrido‐Cumbrera, M., & Correa‐Fernández, J. (2021). Gender differences in the perceptions of green spaces characteristics. Social Science Quarterly, 102(6), 2640-2648. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13074
  4. Chan, C. W. T., Gogovor, A., Valois, M. F., & Ahmed, S. (2018). Age, gender, and current living status were associated with perceived access to treatment among Canadians using a cross sectional survey. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 471. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3215-6
  5. Comber, A. J., Brunsdon, C., & Radburn, R. (2011). A spatial analysis of variations in health access: Linking geography, socio-economic status and access perceptions. International Journal of Health Geographics, 10(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072x-10-44
  6. Davas, A., & Etiler, N. (2024). Gender differences in cost-related unmet healthcare needs: A national study in Turkiye. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 2413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19878-9
  7. Eide, A. H., Mannan, H., Khogali, M., van Rooy, G., Swartz, L., Munthali, A., et al. (2015). Perceived barriers for accessing health services among individuals with disability in four African countries. PLoS One, 10(5), e0125915.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125915
  8. Ergin, I., & Kunst, A. E. (2015). Regional inequalities in self-rated health and disability in younger and older generations in Turkey: The contribution of wealth and education. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 987. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2273-5
  9. Garney, W., Wilson, K., Ajayi, K. V., Panjwani, S., Love, S. M., Flores, S., Garcia, K., & Esquivel, C. (2021). Social-ecological barriers to access to healthcare for adolescents: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4138. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084138
  10. Georgescu, A.-A. (2025). Access to culture for people with disabilities and people living in rural, remote and disadvantaged areas. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), (28.04.2026). Erişim adresi: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2025)777933.
  11. Gimm, G., & Ipsen, C. (2022). Examining rural-urban disparities in perceived need for health care services among adults with disabilities. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 3, 875978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2022.875978
  12. Haggerty, J. L., Roberge, D., Lévesque, J. F., Gauthier, J., & Loignon, C. (2014). An exploration of rural-urban differences in healthcare-seeking trajectories: Implications for measures of accessibility. Health & Place, 28, 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.005
  13. Kim, S. (2024). Effects of perceived accessibility to living infrastructure on positive feelings among older adults.Behavioral Sciences, 14(11), 1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111025
  14. Koçak, Y., Gemici, E., & Zincir, H. (2025). Türkiye'deki yaşlı yetişkinlerin sağlık hizmetlerine erişim deneyimleri: Nitel bir araştırma. Ordu Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Çalışmaları Dergisi, 8(3), 508-518. https://doi.org/10.38108/ouhcd.1501571
  15. Lättman, K., Olsson, L. E., & Friman, M. (2018). A new approach to accessibility-Examining perceived accessibility in contrast to objectively measured accessibility in daily travel. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.002
  16. Lättman, K., Olsson, L. E., Friman, M., & Fujii, S. (2019). Perceived accessibility, satisfaction with daily travel, and life satisfaction among the elderly. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4498. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224498
  17. Lau, K. K. L., Yung, C. C. Y., & Tan, Z. (2021). Usage and perception of urban green space of older adults in the high-density city of Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64, 127251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127251
  18. Mwaka, C. R., Best, K. L., Cunningham, C., Gagnon, M., & Routhier, F. (2023). Barriers and facilitators of public transport use among people with disabilities: A scoping review. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 4, 1336514. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2023.1336514
  19. Nişancı, Z., Kılavuz, M. T., Aysan, M. F., Ovayurt, M. E. T., Yüce, B., Aydın, A. B., …, Aydın, R. N. (2026). Türkiye Genel Sosyal Saha Araştırması (TGSS) 2024: Dataset (28.04.2026). Erişim adresi: https://www.tgss.org.tr/
  20. Paulo Dos Anjos Souza Barbosa, J., Henrique Guerra, P., de Oliveira Santos, C., de Oliveira Barbosa Nunes, A. P., Turrell, G., & Antonio Florindo, A. (2019). Walkability, overweight, and obesity in adults: A systematic review of observational studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(17), 3135. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173135
  21. Ravensbergen, L., Van Liefferinge, M., Isabella, J., Merrina, Z., & El-Geneidy, A. (2022). Accessibility by public transport for older adults: A systematic review. Journal of Transport Geography, 103, 103408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103408
  22. Sözmen, K., & Ünal, B. (2016). Explaining inequalities in health care utilization among Turkish adults: Findings from health survey 2008. Health Policy, 120(1), 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.10.003
  23. Tung, E. L., Peek, M. E., Makelarski, J. A., Escamilla, V., & Lindau, S. T. (2016). Adult BMI and access to built environment resources in a high-poverty, urban geography. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(5), e119-e127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.04.019
  24. Yardim, M. S., & Uner, S. (2018). Equity in access to care in the era of health system reforms in Turkey. Health Policy, 122(6), 645-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.016
  25. Yılmaz, M., & Sayın, C. (2026). A comparative analysis of the access levels of individuals with disabilities to public services and the influencing factors according to their residence in rural and urban areas. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32(2), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1724041