Drawing on critical disability and universal design perspectives within occupational therapy

References

• Gerlach AJ, Teachman G, Laliberte-Rudman D, et al. Expanding beyond individualism: engaging critical perspectives on occupation. Scand J Occup Ther. 2018;25:35–43. doi: 10.1080/11038128.2017.1327616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelan SK. Constructions of disability: a call for critical reflexivity in occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 2011;78:164–172. doi: 10.2182/cjot.2011.78.3.4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farias L, Laliberte Rudman D, Magalhães L. Illustrating the importance of critical epistemology to realize the promise of occupational justice. OTJR. 2016;36:234–243. doi: 10.1177/1539449216665561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laliberte-Rudman D, Aldrich R. “Activated, but stuck”: applying a critical occupational lens to examine the negotiation of long-term unemployment in contemporary socio-political contexts. Societies. 2016;6:28. doi: 10.3390/soc6030028.
   Google Scholar
• Njelesani J, Teachman G, Durocher E, et al. Thinking critically about client-centred practice and occupational possibilities across the life-span. Scand J Occup Ther. 2015;22:252–259. doi: 10.3109/11038128.2015.1049550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdani Y, Gibson BE. Challenging assumptions about ‘normal’ development in children’s rehabilitation: the promise of critical qualitative research. In: Hayre C, Muller D, editors. Enhancing healthcare & rehabilitation: the impact of qualitative research. Rehabilitation science in practice series. Abingdon: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Engagement in living: Critical perspectives on occupation, rights, and wellbeing. Ottava: Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Occupational rights and critical occupational therapy: rising to the challenge. Aust Occup Ther J. 2015;62:449–451. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Social and structural determinants of health: exploring occupational therapy’s structural (in)competence. Can J Occup Ther. 2021;88:365–374. doi: 10.1177/00084174211046797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. A call to resist occupational therapy’s promotion of ableism. Scand J Occup Therap. 2022. doi: 10.1080/11038128.2022.2130821.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerlach AJ. Sharpening our critical edge: occupational therapy in the context of marginalized populations: aiguiser notre sens critique: l’ergothérapie dans le contexte des populations marginalisées. Can J Occup Ther. 2015;82:245–253. doi: 10.1177/0008417415571730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laliberte Rudman D. Mobilizing occupation for social transformation: radical resistance, disruption, and re-configuration: mobiliser l’occupation pour une transformation sociale: résistance radicale, perturbation et reconfiguration. Can J Occup Ther. 2021;88:96–107. doi: 10.1177/00084174211020836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan M, Restall G, editors. Promoting occupational participation: Collaborative relationship-focused occupational therapy. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Kielhofner G. Rethinking disability and what to do about it: disability studies and its implications for occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther. 2005;59:487–496. doi: 10.5014/ajot.59.5.487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison EA, Sheth AJ, Kish J, et al. Disability studies and occupational therapy: renewing the call for change. Am J Occup Ther. 2021;75:7504170010p1. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2021.754002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheth AJ, Kish J, VanPuymbrouck LH, et al. “A legitimate place in the profession”: author reflections on the 2005 disability studies special issue. Am J Occup Therap. 2021;75(4):7504180005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes C, Oliver M, Barton L. Disability studies today. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas C. How is disability understood? An examination of sociological approaches. Disabil Soc. 2004;19:569–583. doi: 10.1080/0968759042000252506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver M. Understanding disability: from theory to practice. London: Mcmillan; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Shakespeare T. Disability rights and wrongs revisited. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Shildrick M. Critical disability studies: rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. In: Watson N, Roulstone A, Thomas C, editors. Routledge handbook of disability studies. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 30–41.
   Google Scholar
• Goodley D, Lawthom R, Liddiard K, et al. Key concerns for critical disability studies. Int J Disabil Soc Just. 2021;1:27.
   Google Scholar
• Meekosha H, Shuttleworth R. What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies? Austr J Hum Rights. 2009;15:47–75. doi: 10.1080/1323238X.2009.11910861.
   Google Scholar
• The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson BE. Parallels and problems of normalization in rehabilitation and universal design: enabling connectivities. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1328–1333. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.891661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamraie A. Universal design and the problem of “post-disability” ideology. Des Cult. 2016;8:285–309. doi: 10.1080/17547075.2016.1218714.
   Google Scholar
• Goodley D. Dis/ability studies: theorising disablism and ableism. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Goodley D, Lawthom R, Liddiard K, et al. Provocations for critical disability studies. Disabil Soc. 2019;34:972–997. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2019.1566889.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imrie R. Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:873–882. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.624250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwarsson S, Ståhl A. Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:57–66. doi: 10.1080/dre.25.2.57.66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imrie R, Luck R. Designing inclusive environments: rehabilitating the body and the relevance of universal design. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1315–1319. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.936191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lid IM. Developing the theoretical content in universal design. Scand J Disabil Res. 2013;15:203–215. doi: 10.1080/15017419.2012.724445.
   Google Scholar
• Lid IM, Solvang PK. (Dis)ability and the experience of accessibility in the urban environment. Alter. 2016;10:181–194. doi: 10.1016/j.alter.2015.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lid IM. Universal design and disability: an interdisciplinary perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1344–1349. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.931472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lid IM. Implementing universal design in a norwegian context: balancing core values and practical priorities. Disabil Stud Quart. 2016. doi: 10.18061/dsq.v36i2.3234.
   Google Scholar
• Lid IM. Vulnerability and disability: a citizenship perspective. Disabil Soc. 2015;30:1554–1567. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2015.1113162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Client-centred occupational therapy: the importance of critical perspectives. Scand J Occup Therap. 2015;22:237–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galvaan R. The contextually situated nature of occupational choice: marginalised young adolescents’ experiences in South Africa. J Occ Sci. 2015;22:39–53. doi: 10.1080/14427591.2014.912124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guajardo A, Kronenberg F, Ramugondo EL. Southern occupational therapies: emerging identities, epistemologies and practices. S Afr J Occ Ther. 2015;45:3–10.
   Google Scholar
• McCormack C, Collins B. The affirmative model of disability: a means to include disability orientation in occupational therapy? The Brit J Occup Therap. 2012;75:156–158. doi: 10.4276/030802212X13311219571909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chichaya TF, Joubert RWE, McColl MA. Voices on disability issues in Namibia: evidence for entrenching occupational justice in disability policy formulation. Scand J Occup Ther. 2020;27:14–27. doi: 10.1080/11038128.2018.1496273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelbrecht M, van Niekerk L, Shaw L. Supported employment for youth with intellectual disability: promoting occupational justice. J Occ Sci. 2022; doi: 10.1080/14427591.2022.2146159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities. 2022. Report No.: ISBN 978-92-4-006360-0.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes C, Mercer G, Shakespeare T. Exploring disability. A sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Tøssebro J. Introduction to the special issues of SJDR: understanding disability. Scand J Disabil Res. 2004;6:3–7. doi: 10.1080/15017410409512635.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey L. Critical social research. London: Unwin Hyman; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Felluga DF. Critical theory: the key concepts. London: Sage; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell FK. Contours of ableism: the production of disability and abledness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Fine M. Critical disability studies: looking back and forward. J Soc Iss. 2019;75:972–984. doi: 10.1111/josi.12344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janz HL. Ableism: the undiagnosed malady afflicting medicine. Can MedAss. J2019:191.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson BE. Worlding disability: Categorizations, labels, and the making of people. AJOB Neurosc. 2019;10:85–87. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2019.1618413.
   Google Scholar
• Feely M. Disability studies after the ontological turn: a return to the material world and material bodies without a return to essentialism. Disabil Soc. 2016;31:863–883. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2016.1208603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jónasdóttir SK, Egilson SÞ, Polgar J. Services, systems, and policies affecting community mobility for people with mobility impairments in Northern Iceland: an occupational perspective. J Occ Sci. 2018; 25:3, 309-321, DOI: 10.1080/14427591.2018.1474797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonehill J, Von Benzon N, Shaw J. ‘The shops were only made for people who could walk’: impairment, barriers and autonomy in the mobility of adults with cerebral palsy in urban England. Mobilities. 2020;15:341–361. doi: 10.1080/17450101.2020.1746057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grue J. Jeg lever et liv som ligner deres. Oslo: Gyldendal 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Stjernborg V. Accessibility for all in public transport and the overlooked (social) dimension—A case study of Stockholm. Sustainabil. 2019;11:4902. doi: 10.3390/su11184902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jóhannsdóttir Á, Egilson ST, Gibson BE. What’s shame got to do with it? The importance of affect in critical disability studies. Disabil Soc. 2021;36:342–357. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2020.1751076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jóhannsdóttir Á, Egilson SÞ, Haraldsdóttir F. Implications of internalised ableism for the health and wellbeing of disabled young people. Sociology Health & Illness. 2022;44:360–376. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin-Thomas TE, Rudman DL, McGrath C, et al. Situating occupational injustices experienced by children with disabilities in rural India within sociocultural, economic, and systemic conditions. J Occ Sci. 2021;29:97–114.
   Google Scholar
• McGrath C, Corrado AM. The environmental factors that influence technology adoption for older adults with age-related vision loss. Brit J Occup Therap. 2019;82:493–501. doi: 10.1177/0308022618813247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katzman E, Mohler E, Durocher E, et al. Occupational justice in direct-funded attendant services: possibilities and constraints. J Occ Sci. 2022;29:586–601. doi: 10.1080/14427591.2021.1942173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdani Y, Ary A, Lunsky Y. Critical analysis of a population mental health strategy: effects on stigma for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. J Ment Health Res Intellect Disabil. 2017;10:144–161. doi: 10.1080/19315864.2017.1281362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulk LY. Occupational rights, choice and variety: a critical occupational analysis of British Columbia’s framework for accessibility legislation. J Occ Sci. 2020;29:577–585.
   Google Scholar
• Fadyl JK, Teachman G, Hamdani Y. Problematizing ‘productive citizenship’ within rehabilitation services: insights from three studies. Disabil Rehabil. 2019; 42:2959–2966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gappmayer G. Disentangling disablism and ableism: the social norm of being able and its influence on social interactions with people with intellectual disabilities. J Occ Sci. 2021;28:102–113. doi: 10.1080/14427591.2020.1814394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao DPG, Sy MP, Martinez PGV, et al. Is occupational therapy an ableist health profession? A critical reflection on ableism and occupational therapy. Cad Bras T Ocu. 2022;30:e3303.
   Google Scholar
• Mahipaul S. Accounting for our history: ableism & white supremacy in occupational therapy. Occ Ther Now. 2022;25:7–10.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman C, VanPuymbrouck L. Impact of occupational therapy education on students’ disability attitudes: a longitudinal study. Am J Occup Therap. 2021;75(4):7504180090.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E, Maisel J. Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. New York: Wiley; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• The Center for Universal Design. About the Center. https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_us/usronmace.htm
   Google Scholar
• The Center for Universal Design. The principles of universal design. 1997 https://projects.ncsu.edu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm
   Google Scholar
• Erdtman E, Rassmus-Gröhn K, Hedvall P-O. Universal design as guiding, striving and unifying: a qualitative study about how universal design is understood, practised and realised in contemporary Sweden. Scand J Disabil Res. 2021;23:158–168. doi: 10.16993/sjdr.770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore A, Lynch H, Boyle B. Can universal design support outdoor play, social participation, and inclusion in public playgrounds? A scoping review. Disabil Rehab. 2020;44:3304–3325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 2006. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization and The World Bank; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Heylighen A, Schijlen J, Van der Linden V, et al. Socially innovating architectural design practice by mobilising disability experience. An exploratory study. Architec Eng Design Manag. 2016;12:253–265. doi: 10.1080/17452007.2016.1172197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watchorn V, Hitch D, Grant C, et al. An integrated literature review of the current discourse around universal design in the built environment – is occupation the missing link? Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43:1–12. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1612471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winance M. Universal design and the challenge of diversity: reflections on the principles of UD, based on empirical research of people’s mobility. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1334–1343. doi: 10.3109/09638288.​2014.936564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Story MF. The principles of universal design. In Preiser WFE, Smith KH, editors. Universal design handbook. 2 ed. mcGraw Hill; 2011. p. 4.1–4.12.
   Google Scholar
• Williams V, Tarleton B, Heslop P, et al. Understanding disabling barriers: a fruitful partnership between disability studies and social practices? Disabil Soc. 2018;33:157–174. doi: 10.1080/09687599.​2017.​1401527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haraldsdóttir F. Simply children. In: Curran T, Runswick-Cole K, editors. Disabled children’s childhood studies: Critical approaches in a global context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013. p. 13–21.
   Google Scholar
• Kattari SK. Ableist microaggressions and the mental health of disabled adults. Community Ment Health J. 2020;56:1170–1179. doi: 10.1007/s10597-020-00615-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirth TP, Branscombe NR. Recognizing ableism: a social identity analysis of disabled people perceiving discrimination as illegitimate. J Soc Iss. 2019;75:786–813. doi: 10.1111/josi.12345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangas O, Kvist J. Nordic welfare states. In: Greve B, editor. The routledge handbook of the welfare state. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 148–160.
   Google Scholar
• Egilson ST, Ólafsdóttir LB, Ingimarsdóttir AS, et al. Life quality and participation of disabled children and young people: design and methods of a transformative study. Int J Qual Meth. 2021;20:160940692110167. doi: 10.1177/16094069211016713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egilson ST. Use of ethnographic data to critically reflect on disabled children’s participation and their encounters with rehabilitation services. In: Hayre C, Muller D, Hackett P, editors. Rehabilitation in practice ethnographic perspectives. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2022. p. 67–82.
   Google Scholar
• Ingimarsdóttir AS, Björnsdóttir K, Hamdani Y, et al. "Then you realise you can actually do it”: Young disabled people negotiating challenges during times of transitioning into adulthood. Submitted.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Experiencing stigma and exclusion: the influence of neoliberal perspectives, practices, and policies on living with chronic illness and disability. Symb Interact. 2020;43:21–45. doi: 10.1002/symb.432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonasdottir SK. Services, systems and policies shaping community mobility for people with mobility impairments: a case study from Northern Iceland [PdD]. London (ON): Western University; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Jónasdóttir SK, Egilson SÞ, Polgar J. Services, systems and policies shaping the built environment for people with mobility impairments. Scand J Disabil Res. 2020;22:371–381. doi: 10.16993/sjdr.730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Althingi. Þingsályktun um stefnu og framkvæmdaáætlun í málefnum fatlaðs fólks fyrir árin 2017-2021 [Resolution on a policy and plan of action on disabled people’s affairs for the years 2017-2021]. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Althingi. Þingsályktun um framkvæmdaáætlun í málefnum fatlaðs fólks til ársins 2014 [resolution on a plan of action on disabled people’s affairs to the year 2014]. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Lög um þjónustu við fatlað fólk með langvarandi stuðningsþarfir [laws on services foro disabled people with long-term needs for support]. Stat. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ingólfsdóttir JG, Traustadóttir R, Egilson SÞ. Rethinking practices by rethinking expertise: a relational approach to family-centred inclusive services. Scand J Disabil Res. 2021;23:1–13. doi: 10.16993/sjdr.734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HK, Park J. Examination of the protection offered by current accessibility acts and guidelines to people with disabilities in using information technology devices. Electron. 2020;9:742. doi: 10.3390/electronics9050742.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammell KW. Building globally relevant occupational therapy from the strength of our diversity. World Feder Occup Therapists Bull. 2019;75:13–26. doi: 10.1080/14473828.2018.1529480.
   Google Scholar
• Horsell C. Problematising disability: a critical policy analysis of the Australian national disability insurance scheme. Austr Soc Work. 2023;76:47–59. doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2020.1784969.
   Google Scholar
• Bacchi C. Poststructural policy analysis: a guide to practice. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Malfitano APS, Whiteford G, Molineux M. Transcending the individual: the promise and potential of collectivist approaches in occupational therapy. Scand J Occup Ther. 2021;28:188–200. doi: 10.1080/11038128.2019.1693627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holler R, Chemla I, Maeir A. Disability orientation of occupational therapy practitioners in physical rehabilitation settings: tension between medical and social models in theory and practice. Am J Occup Therap. 2021;75(4):7504180010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unsworth C, So MH, Chua J, et al. A systematic review of public transport accessibility for people using mobility devices. Disabil Rehab. 2019;43:2253–2267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M, Cooper B, Strong S, et al. The person-environment-occupation model: a transactive approach to occupational performance. Can J Occup Ther. 1996;63:9–23. doi: 10.1177/000841749606300103.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend EA, Polatajko HJ. Enabling occupation II: advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being and justice through occupation. 2nd ed. Canada: CAOT Publications ACE; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Kielhofner G. Model of human occupation. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MA: lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor RR. Kielhofner’s model of human occupation: theory and application. 5th ed. Philadelphia; Wolters Kluwer 2017.
   Google Scholar