Structural ableism has received limited attention in the public health and health
services literature as a determinant of health outcomes and disparities.
1
,
2
This is notable for several reasons. First, disabled people represent an estimated
16% of the world's population,
3
and a sizable portion of the healthcare system exists to provide services to disabled
people. For example, in the United States (U.S.), 36% of healthcare expenditures are
related to disability.
4
Second, interpersonal disability-based discrimination remains prevalent.
5
In the healthcare system, explicit and implicit biases toward disability are pervasive,
suggesting this is an important sector to examine the effects of structural ableism.
6
,
7
Third, significant health inequities exist for and among disabled people which relate
at least in part to discrimination, inaccessibility, and other barriers that disabled
people experience throughout health systems and society.8, 9, 10 To-date, structural
ableism has received greater attention in other fields, such as in prior literature
by disability studies and disability justice scholars.
In this viewpoint, we offer a definition and conceptual framework for examining structural
ableism in public health and healthcare and suggest potential pathways by which structural
ableism may influence health. We also propose a series of principles to guide researchers
in studying structural ableism and health. Throughout this article, we use identify-first
(i.e., disabled person) rather than person-first language (i.e., person with a disability).
We discuss our language choices in Section A of the Supplementary Material. Describing
the effects of structural ableism on health greatly exceeds the scope of a single
publication. For this reason, our broader goal is to inspire dialogue about why structural
ableism has often been ignored in the public health and health services literature
and the ways that these fields have been complicit in perpetuating and legitimizing
ableism. This exploration is particularly timely given the National Institutes of
Health (NIH)'s designation in September 2023 that people with disabilities are a population
with health disparities and related calls for research on ableism.
Defining structural ableism
Structural ableism is a system of historical and contemporary policies, institutions,
and societal norms and practices that devalue and disadvantage people who are disabled,
neurodivergent, chronically ill, mad, and/or living with mental illness and privilege
people who are positioned as able-bodied and able-minded.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 This system
impacts disabled people regardless of whether they identify as disabled and if their
disability is visible and may also affect other populations perceived as deviating
from social, cultural, and economic constructs of productivity and normativity.16,
17, 18 Structural ableism denies disabled communities equitable access to social resources
and to disability competent and affirming health services, control over whether their
experiences are listened to and believed, autonomy over how their needs are represented
and responded to, and justice when they are exposed to harm, discrimination, and violence.
1
,
2
,
8, 9, 10
Structural ableism is upheld via interlocking systems of power and oppression, such
as racism, sexism, transphobia, capitalism, and colonialism, and operates alongside
audism, sanism, and other types of disability-related bias and discrimination including
internalized and interpersonal ableism.
14
,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 Within and outside of health systems, structural
ableism may influence health and contribute to health inequities for disabled people
through multiple pathways. Structural ableism may particularly harm disabled people
who live at the intersection of multiple systems of oppression, such as those organized
around race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, religious
affiliation and religiosity, body shape and size, age, migrant status, nationality,
and/or geographic location.19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
This definition represents our attempt at bringing together concepts from disability
studies and disability justice scholarship and situating them in the burgeoning public
health and health services literature on social and structural determinants of health.
This includes referencing prior work on ableism by Subini Ancy Annamma,
21
Patty Berne,
22
Nicole Brown,
15
Carli Friedman,
11
Talila Lewis,
16
Mia Mingus,
20
and Sins Invalid
22
and on structural determinants of health by Zinzi Bailey,
19
Tyson Brown,
23
and Patricia Homan.
23
Definitions of structural ableism should be refined over time and adapted for various
contexts and communities. For example, structural audism is a related system that
impacts deaf and hard of hearing communities.
24
Section B of the Supplementary Material describes our approach to generating this
definition through narrative review, and Supplementary Table S1 captures prior definitions
identified in the review.
Pathways connecting structural ableism to health
Fig. 1 presents a conceptual framework describing examples of potential upstream pathways,
proximate pathways, and physiological and behavioral processes through which structural
ableism may influence health and contribute to health inequities for and among disabled
people and other populations impacted by ableism. This framework is not comprehensive
but serves to highlight the pervasiveness of structural ableism in public health and
healthcare and how further research is needed to understand how structural ableism
may operate in distinct ways for different disabled communities.
Fig. 1
A conceptual framework highlighting examples of pathways and processes that may connect
structural ableism to health outcomes for and among disabled people and other populations
impacted by ableism.
Potential upstream pathways
Policies
Social, economic, health, and other policies (or a lack of equitable policies) shape
the experiences of people who are disabled, neurodivergent, chronically ill, mad,
and/or living with mental illness.
9
,
13
,
14
Supplementary Table S2 presents a list of relevant policies and selected related scholarship.
One example is the U.S., where state and federal laws dictate what health services
disabled people can access and how much they pay for them. Policies can affect many
aspects of life for disabled people by contributing to extra costs for health care,
personal assistance services, mobility aids, and other assistive technologies. For
example, disabled people are estimated to have at least twice the amount of out-of-pocket
health care expenses and three times greater odds of delaying or forgoing care due
to cost compared to non-disabled people.
25
Rules within Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and other programs can also limit
disabled people's ability to accumulate financial assets and marry without losing
needed health services and benefits.
9
State and federal laws also allow some disabled people to be paid subminimum wages
and determine whether disabled people and their family members have access to paid
medical and family leave. On a global scale, inclusion (or lack of consideration)
of disabled people in policies related to education, social programs, health care
access, political participation, linguistic development, communication access, sexual
and reproductive health, war and conflict settings, and public health emergencies
such as the COVID-19 pandemic are additional examples of how structural ableism may
operate through policy to drive health inequities.
3
Sociocultural attitudes and depictions
Sociocultural attitudes toward disabled people and depictions of disability in media,
health communications, and health systems can also alter how disability is understood
throughout society and lead to institutional, interpersonal, and internalized forms
of ableism.
7
,
17
,
18
When disabled people are not involved in creating societal narratives about disability,
stereotypes and misinformation often proliferate instead.
26
Such depictions often portray disabled people as villains who warrant fear, as victims
who lack agency and deserve pity, and/or as heroes whose life purpose is to triumph
over their disabilities.
26
Sociocultural attitudes and depictions can shape how health professionals, researchers,
and policy-makers approach disability and how families, community members, and caregivers
act towards disabled people.
Health decision-making and research
Disabled communities encounter additional systemic exclusion when it comes to decision-making
in public health and healthcare. In the U.S., a national survey found that only 3.1%
of physicians report that they have a disability,
27
and the percentage of grant applications to NIH with a principal investigator disclosing
a disability was only 1.9% in 2008 and fell to 1.2% in 2018.
28
This is significant because physicians and researchers contribute to the development
of health policies and are often selected for decision-making roles within health
systems. The under-representation of disabled people within these fields relates in
part to experiences of educational and workplace discrimination and inaccessibility
that affect retention and advancement.29, 30, 31, 32 Additionally, disabled people
are largely prohibited from participating in clinical research due to the inaccessibility
of study designs and unjustified eligibility criteria that restrict their engagement.
33
Such exclusions may lead to misrepresentations about the needs of disabled people
and contribute to the erasure of disability in health policy and resource allocation.
8
,
17
,
34
Biomedical model of disability
The biomedical model of disability—which understands disability as impairment resulting
from a health condition—has also contributed to health systems that view disability
as a problem to be solved, discourage positive disability identity development, and
fail to appreciate the contributions of disabled people.
13
,
14
While investments in medical interventions for disability may be desired in many cases,
many disabled people also report that they would choose to be disabled even if given
the opportunity to be “cured”.
12
,
13
For this reason, investments in programs and social conditions that improve disabled
people's quality of life and reduce barriers to activity are often more appropriate
and beneficial.
1
Furthermore, the assumed objectivity and universality of the biomedical model of disability
has led health professionals and researchers to rely on tools and metrics that often
misunderstand how disabled people view their experiences.
34
The social model of disability—which argues that social attitudes, discrimination,
and inaccessibility make a health condition disabling and that society often creates
disability through ableism—can offer a useful counterpoint to the biomedical model.
12
,
13
However, scholars have noted that efforts to globalize social and human rights models
of disability in place of the biomedical model should also be questioned because they
can contribute to the erasure of Indigenous knowledge and reinforce colonial patterns
of thinking that ignore how disability is understood and experienced in varied ways
across social and cultural contexts.35, 36, 37
Eugenics and institutionalization
Finally, histories of eugenics and forced sterilization, social and educational segregation,
and institutionalization rooted in ableism, racism, classism, and related systems
inform health policies today that can deny disabled people their personal autonomy.
38
In the U.S., more than 30 states enacted laws that required sterilization as a condition
of release from psychiatric and other institutions during the 20th century.
38
Supplementary Table S3 presents a list of selected scholarship examining the legacies
of eugenics and institutionalization in health policy, especially for Black, Indigenous,
and disabled people of color. Today, some disabled people continue to face coerced
contraception, and disabled parents are disproportionately denied child custody. Health
system policies also continue to shape disabled people's experiences in mental health
and addiction treatment and under what circumstances the state can involuntarily commit
and restrain them. In Canada, assisted suicide laws and the ways they might coerce
disabled people, especially in the absence of safeguards and input from disabled communities,
have also been debated as a form of contemporary eugenics.
39
Lastly, many disabled people have been forced to live in congregate care settings
due to historical and contemporary disinvestment in community-based services (resulting
from institutionalization) where they were largely unprotected during the COVID-19
pandemic and died at high rates.
3
Potential proximate pathways
Health services
Policies and other upstream pathways of structural ableism may contribute to health
inequities for and among disabled people via more proximate pathways. Principally,
a disabled person's access to health care and whether the services they receive are
disability competent and affirming can directly affect their health status.10, 12
Structural factors such as the physical accessibility of facilities, the accessibility
of scheduling platforms and administrative processes, communication access, the training
and experience of health professionals around working with disabled patients, and
the availability of disabled health professionals to provide disability-congruent
health services can all influence quality of care and determine health outcomes for
disabled patients.
6
,
7
,
12
,
27
,
29
,
40
Social determinants and inaccessibility
Another pathway that may connect structural ableism to health is the discrimination
and barriers that disabled people encounter in accessing housing, education, employment,
and other social determinants of health.
3
A large body of research has established that these social determinants affect health
in multiple ways.
3
,
8
,
9
Inaccessibility in the built environment (e.g., in transportation, infrastructure,
and public spaces) and in virtual environments (i.e., the web) can also limit access
to health services and health-promoting resources for people with physical disabilities,
with low vision, who are deaf or hard of hearing, and/or who have other access needs.
40
Adverse childhood experiences and victimization
Throughout society, disabled people are victimized at high rates. Disabled children
are nearly twice as likely to have adverse childhood experiences than non-disabled
children,
41
and disabled adults are more than two and a half times more likely to experience victimization,
such as rape, sexual assault, and robbery.
42
While experiences vary by disability type, most communities of disabled people report
elevated exposure to violence.
42
State-sanctioned violence
Finally, disabled people, especially Black, Indigenous, and disabled people of color,
are unequally exposed to state violence through incarceration, arrest, police brutality,
war, and other practices and systems.
3
,
16
,
22
,
42
,
43
In the U.S., the cumulative probability of having been arrested by the age of 28 years
is markedly higher among disabled people (average: 42.7%; Black: 55.2%; Hispanic:
46.1%; white: 39.7%) than non-disabled people (average: 29.7%; Black: 37.3%; Hispanic:
31.4%; white: 27.6%).
44
Furthermore, approximately 66% of incarcerated people in state and federal prisons
report a disability, and 42% report a disability and also identify as Black, Hispanic,
and/or another minoritized racialized and/or ethnic identity.
43
While public data on deaths in police custody are incomplete and lack detail on disability
status, researchers estimate that more than one-third of persons killed by law enforcement
are disabled or have a history of mental illness.
42
Potential physiological and behavioral processes
In addition to the pathways discussed above, structural ableism may influence health
via complex physiological and behavioral processes, similar to other structural determinants
of health.
19
,
45
Some potential processes that may warrant further research include chronic stress
and allostatic load, minority stress and the health effects of trauma, and unhealthy
substance use and other health risk behaviors as a coping strategy for discrimination
experiences and inequitable social conditions.
3
,
5
,
45
Principles for studying structural ableism
Despite the growing evidence base around health disparities affecting disabled people,
a sizable gap remains around how structural ableism has caused and contributed to
these inequities.
1
,
2
Fig. 2 describes a series of principles that hold relevance for studying structural
ableism within health systems and its health effects for and among disabled people
and other populations impacted by ableism.
Fig. 2
A series of principles relevant to studying structural ableism within health systems.
Interrogate public health and healthcare's role in perpetuating structural ableism
While the public health and healthcare fields have often positioned themselves as
allies to disabled people, these fields have had a significant and sustained role
in perpetuating and legitimizing structural ableism.
1
,
2
,
6
,
36
While many scientific disciplines and social sectors have been complicit in upholding
structural ableism, the public health and healthcare fields are particularly relevant
for interrogation given that they provide health services to disabled people and shape
public perceptions about what disability is. In the U.S., prior research shows that
32% of health care professionals hold explicit preferences for non-disabled people
over disabled people and 84% hold implicit preferences.
6
Furthermore, less than half of physicians report that they feel very confident providing
the same quality of care to disabled patients as non-disabled patients, and most medical
school training does not equip students with the tools needed to provide high-quality
care to disabled patients.
7
,
12
Thus, before public health and healthcare institutions can effectively contribute
to dismantling structural ableism in their fields, it is critical that members of
these institutions commit to interrogating the ways that they continue to uphold ableism
in their own communities.29, 30, 31, 32 This includes listening to the experiences
of disabled people within their workforces and responding to their needs and leadership.
Resist the biomedical model of disability as an objective and universal framework
The biomedical model of disability—which remains engrained in public health and healthcare—is
out-of-touch with the work of disability studies scholars who stress the role of social
context in shaping a person's experience with disability and ableism.
13
Nevertheless, many health measures, such as the quality-adjusted life year, the disability-adjusted
life year, years of healthy life lost due to disability, and disability free life
expectancy continue to privilege the biomedical model in ways that appear likely to
devalue disabled people's lives in health policy and generate inaccurate knowledge
about disabled people's needs and experiences.
34
In studying structural ableism, researchers should resist the biomedical model as
the only framework for understanding disability and avoid measures that privilege
it without sufficient justification.
13
,
34
Instead, we encourage use of the social model of disability as a starting point for
interrogating the biomedical model and recommend engagement with disability studies
and disability justice scholarship to determine the most relevant models for use,
which may differ by context and community.
Recognize that experiences of disability and health differ cross-culturally
In public health and healthcare, Eurocentric conceptions of disability—chiefly the
biomedical model but also the social and human rights models—are often described as
universal.35, 36, 37 Scholars such as Maya Kalyanpur and Shridevi Rao have argued
that imposing such understandings of disability on Indigenous and/or Global South
communities can contribute to erasure of Indigenous knowledge, ignore community strengths,
and reinforce colonial patterns of thinking that attempt to homogenize human differences.
35
Their work highlights the need for improved public health and healthcare approaches
that are more attentive to existing local strengths and the historical, cultural,
and structural contexts that shape community experiences. In a similar way, researcher
and activist Bhargavi Davar has asserted that a global model of mental health is not
possible, given the diversity of lived experiences in the Global South, the psychosocial
impacts of social and economic inequality resulting from colonialism, and how the
evidence for prioritizing pharmacologic interventions in mental healthcare was largely
generated in the Global North.
36
Given this critique, researchers should increasingly work to recognize the heterogeneous
ways in which disability is experienced and understood across social and cultural
contexts. Such an approach is likely to lead to public health and health care interventions
that benefit multiple communities. For example, education researcher Hollie Mackey
has proposed an Indigenous leadership paradigm for dismantling ableism that holds
relevance for dismantling ableism in many populations.
37
Connect structural ableism to structural racism and other forms of oppression
Prior discourse around ableism by disability justice advocates and scholars has emphasized
the historical and contemporary interconnectedness of ableism to racism and other
forms of oppression.
16
,
20
,
22
For example, in the U.S., the prevalence of disability is higher among Black and Indigenous
populations than other racialized and ethnic groups and among transgender adults compared
to cisgender adults.
9
In disability studies, DisCrit is a framework proposed by researcher Subini Ancy Annamma
that combines concepts from critical race theory and disability studies to analyze
race and disability as interdependent constructs using an intersectional framework.
21
This work is situated within a long tradition of Black feminist and critical race
scholarship and activism in which intersectionality has challenged interlocking systems
of power (such as racism and ableism) and their effects on the health of people whose
health experiences are shaped by the intersection of these systems.
21
In line with this framework, researchers should consider the ways that structural
ableism may converge with structural racism and other forms of oppression to produce
inequitable outcomes for and among disabled people.
16
,
20
,
22
,
24
Supplementary Table S4 presents a selected list of scholarship on intersectional experiences
of ableism.
Examine upstream pathways upholding ableism along with more proximate ones
In a 2023 publication, researchers Rupa Sheth Valdez and Bonnielin Swenor outlined
a strategic map for research on structural ableism in health systems.
1
We reiterate their calls to measure and examine the effects of structural ableism
on health and health care experiences using quantitative and qualitative methods across
the life course. We emphasize here that structural ableism should be studied at multiple
levels, including the upstream policies, institutions, and systems upholding ableism
as described in our conceptual framework. To support these efforts, it is critical
that public health and health care institutions name ableism and structural ableism
as drivers of health inequities for disabled people and direct appropriate resources
to researching and interrupting them.
2
Dismantle academic and institutional forms of ableism and center disabled people
Finally, it is well-documented that academic and institutional ableism has contributed
to significant under-representation of disabled researchers throughout academia, science,
and health research.
15
,
29
,
31
Since disabled researchers receive only a small fraction of grant funding and have
a lower success rate for funding conditional on applying,
28
it is plausible that research on structural ableism in public health and healthcare
could be dominated by non-disabled researchers. For this reason, it is critical that
researchers studying structural ableism acknowledge their positionality, partner with
disabled scholars and community members in ways that meaningfully distribute resources
and power, read and cite disability studies and disability justice scholarship, and
work to disseminate research in ways that are accessible to disabled and deaf communities.
15
,
31
,
32
Concluding remarks
This viewpoint examines scholarship by disability studies and disability justice scholars
and researchers studying social and structural determinants of health to offer a definition
of structural ableism in public health and healthcare. It also proposes potential
pathways through which structural ableism may influence health and several principles
for studying structural ableism in health systems. The larger purpose of this viewpoint,
however, is to call for increased engagement around ableism as a structural determinant
of health to advance more equitable health policies and health care practices for
disabled people and other populations impacted by ableism. Ultimately, the most promising
strategy to interrupt ableism is to center a representative coalition of disabled
people in the solutions.31, 32
Contributors
DJL's role included conceptualization, formal analysis, visualization, and writing
(original draft, review, and editing). JAC's role included supervision of the study
and writing (original draft, review, and editing).
Declaration of interests
The authors report that they have no conflicts of interests to disclose.