SynthesisBMC medical education2026
Attitudes of healthcare professionals towards persons with disabilities: a systematic review (2015-2025).
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe attitudes of healthcare professionals towards persons with disabilities are a key determinant of the quality, accessibility, and equality of healthcare. Despite increasing recognition of ableism in healthcare, systematic reviews that synthesise these attitudes across medical professions remain scarce. This systematic review aimed to examine healthcare professionals' attitudes towards persons with various types of disability, including intellectual disability, physical disability, and disability in general, defined as disability without specification of type, and to identify factors associated with these attitudes.
methodsFour electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, ERIC, and ProQuest) were systematically searched for English-language studies published from January 2015 to February 2025. Supplementary backward and forward citation searching continued until May 2025. After duplicate removal, 1,690 records were screened. Study selection was completed in May 2025, resulting in the inclusion of 27 studies, most of which were cross-sectional and of good overall quality. Quantitative and mixed-methods studies were included. Data were synthesised narratively, taking into account professional groups, countries, clinical contexts, and final disability categories: intellectual disability, physical/sensory disabilities, and disability in general. Reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed using the STROBE-M checklist.
resultsAcross the 27 included studies, overall attitudes were moderately positive but varied substantially. The greatest challenges were observed in relation to intellectual disabilities, where ambivalence, paternalistic attitudes, and the undermining of patients' competence were more frequently reported. The key predictors of positive attitudes included previous professional experience, the quality of contact with persons with disabilities, and formal training in disability-related issues. Marked differences were identified between countries and professional groups, highlighting the role of cultural context and systemic preparation.
conclusionsThe findings underscore the need for contact-based educational interventions, the development of clear policy standards to counter ableism, and further research into implicit bias in healthcare settings. Implementing these measures may enhance the quality and inclusiveness of care provided to persons with disabilities. The evidence is limited by the predominance of self-reported measures and the use of author-developed questionnaires in some studies.
fundingNo external funding. REGISTRATION: Not registered.
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.