ArticleSociology of health & illness2026
Nothing About Us Without Us in the First 1000 Days: Developing Inclusive Early Years Support With Disabled Families.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nothing About Us Without Us in the First 1000 Days: Developing Inclusive Early Years Support With Disabled Families.Sociology of health & illness · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article reports on co-design workshops with 11 disabled families ('co-designers') as part of developing a 'universal' (for all families) early years programme in health and social care. The programme aims to enhance caregiver and infant well-being. Given well-documented limitations of existing support for disabled families, ensuring disability inclusion from the outset was essential. The term 'disabled families' refers to 2 configurations: families where a parent is disabled and families of disabled children. Intensive workshops employed barrier mapping and solution generation activities. Thematic analysis revealed four domains where co-designers identified exclusionary practices and proposed inclusive alternatives: physical and environmental accessibility, programme design flexibility, content inclusivity and professional practice and empowerment. Co-designers demonstrated how institutional ableism operates through inaccessible venues, rigid attendance policies, normative developmental milestones and dismissal of parental expertise. Solutions moved beyond surface accommodations towards fundamental transformation. Co-designers proposed accessible venues with sensory considerations, flexible attendance, strength-based content, comprehensive facilitator training validating experiential knowledge and enabled peer support. This study demonstrates that meaningful inclusion requires dismantling rather than retrofitting exclusionary systems. Co-designers' insights provide both structural critique of institutional ableism and practical design principles for inclusive provision, showing how participatory approaches can generate alternative possibilities for equitable family support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.