Barriers to the Social Participation of People with Locomotor Disabilities: A Scoping Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46858/VIMSJPT/2026/v8.i1/03-10Keywords:
Environmental Barriers, Locomotor Disability, Social ParticipationAbstract
Background: Social Participation (SP) is a cornerstone of health, wellbeing, and quality of life. For people with locomotor impairments, full and effective social participation remains an elusive goal, hindered by a complex array of barriers. So, this study aims to find barriers that limit the SP of people with locomotor disabilities in various life domains. Methods: Following the methodological framework for scoping reviews proposed by Arksey and O’Malley, this review synthesized evidence from peer-reviewed articles, systematic reviews, and key reports. The focus was on multi-level. Findings: The literature consistently identifies a persistent and interacting physical and environmental, attitudinal and social institutional and policy, personal and relational, and economic barriers. While technology is often a facilitator, it can also present new barriers. Conclusion: Barriers to social participation for people with locomotor disabilities remain pervasive and systemic. Effective intervention requires holistic approach which promote social inclusion in all spheres of life.
References
1. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
2. World Health Organization, & World Bank. World report on disability. Geneva: WHO; 2011.
3. Awasthi A, Pandey CM, Dubey M, Rastogi S. Trends, prospects and deprivation index of disability in India: Evidences from census 2001 and 2011. Disabil Health J. 2017; 10(2):247-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.10.011 PMid:27876288.
4. Padhyegurjar MS. Factors affecting treatment seeking behaviour of individuals with locomotor disabilities.
Natl J Med Res. 2012; 2(2):145-148.
5. Mahmud I, Clarke L, Ploubidis GB. Socio-demographic determinants of the severity of locomotor disability among adults in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. 2011. Arch Public Health. 2017; 75:47. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13690-017-0217-5 PMid:29181151 PMCid:PMC5694906.
6. Mitra S, Posarac A, Vick B. Disability and poverty in developing countries: A multidimensional study.
World Dev. 2013; 41:1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.0247. Shakespeare T, Officer A. Disability and health equity: a global perspective. Lancet. 2021; 397(10285):1950-1952.
8. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). New York: UN. 2006.
9. Kuper H, Heydt P, Davey C, Bougea A, Goli T, Gopinath M, et al. The missing billion: Access to health and social care for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2023; 11(2):e250-e258.
10. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023. New York: UN. 2023.
11. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3):141146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 PMid:26134548.
12. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1):19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1364557032000119616
13. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7):467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/ M18-0850 PMid:30178033.
14. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/14712288-8-45 PMid:18616818 PMCid:PMC2478656.
15. Kuper H, Heydt P, Davey C, et al. The missing billion: access to health and social care for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2023;11(2):e250-e258.
16. Liddiard K, Slater J, Evans K. I can’t be the only one who feels like this: A qualitative study of the social participation of young people with mobility impairments. Sociol Health Illn. 2021; 43(5):1167-1183.
17. Hammel J, Southall K, Forman L, Till L, McCormick S, Valdez R. Environmental barriers and supports to everyday participation: A qualitative meta-synthesis of the experiences of people with mobility impairments.
Disabil Rehabil. 2022; 44(5):690-701.
18. Shakespeare T, Watson N, Vehmas S, editors. The Social Model of Disability: Global perspectives and future directions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2024.
19. Ghai A. Rethinking disability in India: a critical discourse. Abingdon: Routledge. 2021.
20. Mitra S, Sambamoorthi U. Employment of persons with disabilities: Evidence from the National Sample Survey. Econ Polit Wkly. 2014; 49(16):79-84.
21. Gignac MA, Jetha A, Ginis KA, Ibrahim S. A constant negotiation: A qualitative study of the strategies used by working-age adults with physical disabilities to manage the dynamic process of social participation. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(12):e041203.
22. Darcy S, Hergenrather K, Poulos A. Digital inclusion and disability: A scoping review of barriers and facilitators to web access. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2024; 23(1):345-360.
23. Grech S, Soldatic K. Disability in the Global South: The critical handbook. Cham: Springer. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42488-0
24. Furlong M, O’Brien P. Enforcement of disability rights legislation: A global review. Int J Disabil Soc Justice. 2022; 2(1):45-67.
25. Return on Disability Group. The Global Economics of Disability Annual Report. 2025.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
