“I Know That Clinic Isn’t Meant for Me”: Barriers to Primary Health Care for Adults with Physical Disabilities in Rural Ethiopia—A Critical Disability Theory Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to health care is a fundamental human right established in various legal frameworks worldwide. However, increasing evidence indicates that individuals with physical disabilities in rural Ethiopia continue to face barriers and disparities in accessing health care, leading to unmet needs and worsening health. Guided by Critical Disability Theory and Intersectionality Theory, this instrumental case study explored the barriers to accessing primary health care (PHC) for adults with physical disabilities in rural Ethiopia and examined how disability intersects with poverty, gender, and rurality to shape exclusion. Following purposeful sampling, we conducted 14 interviews and one focus group discussion (n = 7) with adults with physical disabilities, supplemented by PHC facility infrastructure observation. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified intersecting barriers across four domains: physical and environmental barriers, socioeconomic marginalization, socio-cultural stigma and attitudinal barriers, and systemic weaknesses in health service delivery. This revealed that disability-related barriers are rooted in structural ableism and intersecting inequities, underscoring the urgent need for inclusive policies and disability-inclusive practices. Such practices include enforcing accessibility standards, expanding community-based health insurance to cover disability-specific needs, supporting transportation, and disability-specific training for health professionals. Implementing these practices is essential to advancing disability rights and ensuring equitable health access in Ethiopia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".