Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39955631›Full record

ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2025

Social inequalities in eligibility rates and use of the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme, 2016-22: an administrative data analysis.

George Disney, Yi Yang, Peter Summers, Alexandra Devine, Helen Dickinson, Anne M Kavanagh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Assessing Unmet Social Needs in Multiple Sclerosis Care in Australia: A Qualitative Assessment of Feasibility, Barriers and Enablers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

George DisneyMelbourne Disability Institute, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Yi YangMelbourne Disability Institute, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Peter SummersMelbourne Disability Institute, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Alexandra DevineCentre for Health Policy, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Helen DickinsonThe University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT.
Anne M KavanaghCentre for Health Policy, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.ORCID 0000-0002-1573-3464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess differences in eligibility rates and use of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). STUDY

designAnalysis of NDIS unit-record administrative data. SETTING,

participantsApplicants for NDIS support aged 7 years or older, 1 July 2016 - 31 August 2022 (eligibility analysis); active NDIS participants aged 7 years or older on 31 August 2022 (plan size and spending analyses).

main outcome measuresDifferences in NDIS eligibility rates by broad age group (under 55 years v 55 years or older), gender (girls and women v other applicants), and residential socio-economic status (three lowest deciles of the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage v other areas); differences in NDIS personal plan size (allocation) and spending (use) by gender and residential socio-economic status.

resultsDuring 2016-22, 705 594 people aged 7 years or older had applied for NDIS support; 485 676 applicants with recorded decisions were included in our analysis (393 152 eligible, 92 524 ineligible). Eligibility rates were highest for applicants with brain injury or stroke, intellectual disability, or autism (900 or more per 1000 applicants), and only minor inequalities by socio-demographic group were evident. Eligibility rates were lower for applicants with physical disability, psychosocial disability, or unclassified (other) disability (60-75%). Eligibility inequalities were most marked for people with physical disability, with fewer approvals for women and girls than men and boys (145 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 138 - 152] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants), for people aged 55 years or older than for younger applicants (235 [95% CI, 227-242] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants), and for people from lower socio-economic status areas than for those from other areas (86 [95% CI, 78-93] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants). The eligibility rate for applicants with psychosocial disability was lower for women and girls than men and boys (83 [95% CI, 77-89] fewer approvals per 1000 applicants). Inequalities in plan sizes and spending by socio-economic group and gender for the 312 268 active participants at 31 August 2022 were smaller.

conclusionsWomen and girls and applicants over 55 years of age or living in socio-economically disadvantaged areas with certain disability types are less likely to be deemed eligible for NDIS support than other applicants. Inequalities in plan allocation and use of personal NDIS budgets are less marked. Changes to NDIS eligibility processes could reduce these inequalities.

Indexed as

Eligibility DeterminationInsurance, DisabilityPersons with DisabilitiesAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsYoung AdultDisabled personsGender identitySocioeconomic factors

Identifiers

PMID39955631
PMCPMC11830222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.