Social distancing restrictions are undoubtedly important for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 however, they are also adversely impacting population health and health service access. It is important that priority populations with a disability which may already have adverse health, access to health services, and autonomy and participation compared to those without disability, are able to receive preventative health and social care during periods of restriction. The impact of social distancing restrictions on people with disability is not uniform nor well‐understood. Research has been cross‐sectional and considered data gathered during social distancing restrictions, or longitudinal, considering data gathered during a pre‐pandemic baseline. This longitudinal study investigated the impact of lifting social distancing restrictions on priority domains for people with disability including autonomy and participation, access to health services, health issues and quality of life. People with spinal cord injury in Victoria, Australia ( n = 71) completed a survey towards the end of social‐distancing restrictions (T1) and 6‐months post social distancing restrictions (T2). Non‐parametric tests for significant differences confirmed that 6‐months post‐lifting social distancing restrictions participants experienced a significant increase in health conditions, a significant decrease in the number of inaccessible health services, and a significantly lower level of limitations across participation and autonomy, outdoor autonomy and work and education domains. QOL improved 6‐months post lifting restrictions, however not to a significant level. The adverse health experienced by people with spinal cord injury after lifting restrictions may in part result from limited health service access and reduced participation during the time of restrictions. Clear definitions of what constitutes as essential care may ensure that eligible and required care remains received during lockdown or instances when service provision is compromised. Health and social care providers should be equipped with the knowledge of priority populations so that their support can be targeted to those most in need.

Background The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is disproportionately impacting the health of people with disability. Resilience has remained an important health promoting characteristic during periods of social distancing restrictions. Factors promoting resilience for people with disability under the context of the pandemic remains poorly understood. Studies have yet to investigate evidence-based factors that promote resilience over multiple periods of restrictions for people with disability. Methods A longitudinal study developed via a collaborative partnership between peer-support workers with lived experience of spinal cord injury (SCI) and university researchers was undertaken to fill knowledge gaps around factors promoting resilience for people with SCI during two periods of stringent social distancing restrictions within Victoria, Australia. Over 12-months, participants with SCI completed two surveys, towards the end of two lockdown periods. Evidence-based factors associated with resilience were measured. The Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire, the International SCI Quality of Life scale, and the 10-item Conor Davidson Resilience Scale, respectively measured autonomy and participation limitations, life satisfaction and psychological health, and resilience. A structural equation modelling (SEM) approach established factors directly and indirectly associated with resilience. Results A model with excellent fit was produced. During two extended lockdowns over the 12-month period, increased family role limitations and favourable psychological health were respectively, negatively (Lockdown 1 [n = 127]: β = -.251, p < .01, Lockdown 2: β = -.400, p < .01) and positively (Lockdown 1: β = .601, p < .01, Lockdown 2 [n = 65]: β = .430, p < .01) associated with resilience. Indirect negative associations between resilience and increased outdoor autonomy limitations (Lockdown 1: β = -.195, p < .01, Lockdown 2: β = -.255, p < .01) and social life limitations (Lockdown 1: β = -.217, p < .01, Lockdown 2: β = -.142, p < .05) existed, and these relationships were moderated by psychological health. Conclusions Psychological health, and participation and autonomy are determinants of resilience during periods of crisis. Health and social care providers and public health departments should prioritise programs promoting these domains, to counter the negative impact of social distancing.