Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41366678›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2025

Addressing ableism in healthcare: integrating critical disability theory into health services research.

Ellie Gooderham, Julia Smith, Ruth Lavergne, Rita K McCracken, Lindsay Hedden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Ellie GooderhamFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada. egooderh@sfu.ca.
Julia SmithFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.
Ruth LavergneDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, 402-1465 Brenton Street, Halifax, NS, B3J 3T4, Canada.
Rita K McCrackenSchool of Medicine, Simon Fraser University, 13450-102 Avenue, Surrey, BC, V3T 0A3, Canada.
Lindsay HeddenFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are limited frameworks for health services researchers to draw on that engage with critical disability theory while considering health services needs of disabled people, despite the quantity of research about disabled people. Research about people with disabilities without inclusion of their perspectives is directly in conflict with the disability rights movement and perpetuates inequity. One mean to include disabled perspectives in research is through disability theory engagement. Through this non-systematic critical review of existing literature, we position critical disability theory in the context of health services research and exemplify why this is a vital consideration when research investigates people with disabilities. We present four tenets of the theory: lived/living experience, intersectionality, structural violence, and ableism, and explore how these can contextualise disabled experiences of healthcare access. We demonstrate how to apply critical disability theory to the Levesque Framework, a commonly used health services access framework. By bridging the gap of critical disability theory inclusion in health services research, we help shift the needle towards improved disability engagement in research and healthcare access equity for people with disabilities.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchPersons with DisabilitiesDisability DiscriminationHealthcare DisparitiesHumansAbleismCritical disability theoryHealthcare access frameworkHealth servicesIntersectionalityLived/living experienceStructural violence

Identifiers

PMID41366678
PMCPMC12801437

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.