Peer-reviewed article
Effectiveness of interventions to promote social inclusion of people with disabilities in high-income countries: a systematic review of quantitative evaluation studies.
Schroeder M, Weber G, Suhrcke M ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This systematic review examines interventions to promote social inclusion of people with disabilities in high-income countries. The review included 50 studies with mixed results: 40% reported positive effects, 28% found no effect, and 32% had mixed outcomes. Interventions targeting social and communication skills showed more positive results than those aimed at broader community participation. The evidence base is fragmented and biased toward individual-level interventions rather than structural approaches.
Key points
- Of 50 included studies, 20 (40%) reported significant positive effects, 14 (28%) no effect, and 16 (32%) mixed outcomes
- Social and communication skills interventions showed the most positive effects
- Broader community participation interventions more frequently showed null effects
- Risk of bias was low in only 16% of studies, moderate in 42%, and high in 42%
- Evidence gaps include limited representation of diverse disability groups and few structural interventions
Limitations
The review focuses on high-income countries only, so findings are not generalizable to low- and middle-income settings. The document does not provide detail on specific child-focused outcomes or age-disaggregated results.
Abstract
Objectives Despite policy commitments to social inclusion for people with disabilities, the effectiveness of interventions remains unclear, particularly in high-income countries. This systematic review synthesises evidence and examines variation by population, setting and intervention. Design Systematic review. Setting All settings in which social inclusion interventions might be implemented in high-income countries. Participants Children and adults with disabilities (0-65 years) living in high-income countries. Interventions Promoting social inclusion for people with disabilities. Eligibility criteria Studies were eligible if they were peer-reviewed, quantitative evaluations of interventions aimed at improving social inclusion among people with disabilities. The studies had to have been conducted in high-income countries and report pre/post or between-group outcomes. We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised designs and before-after designs. We excluded qualitative studies, studies with fewer than 20 participants and research conducted outside high-income settings. Data sources We searched seven databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, APA PsycInfo and Eric), including studies published up to 20 March 2026. Risk of bias Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2 (revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials) and ROBINS-I (risk of bias for non-randomised studies - of interventions) tools. Synthesis of results Results were synthesised narratively and structured by intervention type and outcome domain. Primary and secondary outcome measures Outcome measures related to social inclusion, including social skills, broad social participation and interpersonal and community relationships, classified within an ecological framework aligned with the WHO CBR (community-based rehabilitation) domains. Results 50 studies met the inclusion criteria, covering a total of 10 904 participants. 20 studies (40%) reported significant positive effects, 14 (28%) no effect and 16 (32%) mixed outcomes. Positive effects were most frequently observed for interventions targeting social and communication skills, whereas null effects were more common for broader community participation outcomes. Risk of bias was low in 8 studies (16%), moderate in 21 (42%) and high in 21 (42%), with no significant association between risk of bias and reported effectiveness. Evidence gaps included limited representation of diverse disability groups, few structural interventions and sparse outcomes on identity, rights and justice. Conclusion Some promising practices exist (notably family-centred and interpersonal), but the evidence base is fragmented and weighted towards individual change. Future research and policy should prioritise holistic, multilevel strategies that address relational and structural barriers alongside individual supports. Trial registration The systematic review was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9wfqyhttps://osf.io/9wfqy).