Addressing ableism in healthcare: integrating critical disability theory into health services research
Bibliographic record
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".