Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41764776›Full record

ArticleNursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals2026

Criptiquing Disability Models: Compulsory Able-Bodiedness, Nursing Practice, and Reimagined Disability.

Teresa A Graziano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Teresa A GrazianoDepartment of Nursing, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5700-2945

Funding

Center for Nursing Philosophy
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within nursing education and practice, disability has been shaped by models of disability that narrowly focus on rehabilitating the body to a normative, able-bodied state. This has profound moral implications for nursing practice and affects the nurse-patient dynamic. Typically, this empowers the nurse while disempowering the disabled person by portraying the nurse as the expert in disability and the disabled person as a passive recipient of care. This paper applies crip theory, specifically McRuer's framework of compulsory able-bodiedness, to critically examine the enduring presence of the charity, moral, and medical models of disability in nursing education and practice. Compulsory able-bodiedness is the system that produces disability by othering non-normative bodies. This produces a hierarchy of bodily normalcy, with people who are able-bodied at the top, people with visible disabilities in the middle, and people with invisible disabilities at the bottom. I argue that these three historically dominant models are etic, ignore disabled people's voices, and perpetuate ableist assumptions that limit the profession's capacity to support disabled people in liberatory and socially just ways. I then present an alternate crip paradigm: the social model of disability. The social model of disability offers nurses the opportunity to honour the disabled person as the expert in their care, focus on the individual's strengths rather than deficits, and recognise the complex interplay between physiological, social, political, and environmental factors that contribute to the experience of disability. In raising this critical consciousness, I call for a reimagined nursing education and practice that honours disability as a source of knowledge, transformation, and resistance.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesPhilosophy, NursingDisability DiscriminationHumanscrip nursingcrip theorydisability justicenursing philosophy

Identifiers

PMID41764776
PMCPMC12950276

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.