Brigitte Rohwerder,2 Maria Zuurmond,3 Cathy Stephen,4 Josephine Njungi5 and Elizabeth Ogutu6
Abstract Disability stigma is a persistent barrier to the inclusion of people with disabilities, yet its impact is often overlooked in programming aimed at disability inclusion, and there is little evidence about disability stigma reduction interventions. Drawing on research from the Disability Inclusive Development Inclusive Futures programme (2018–26), this article outlines programme learning about disability stigma through the framework of different stigma types (social, structural, internalised, and stigma by association), as well as the role of intersectionality and stigma. Programme learning about how to reduce disability stigma when working on disability-inclusive programming highlights the importance of having a shared understanding of stigma to better guide interventions. More intentional planning for stigma reduction, as well as targeting the different types of disability stigma is key. It is also important to centre the experiences of people with disabilities. Changing the norms around ingrained forms of stigma requires a long-term sustained approach to stigma reduction.
Keywords disability stigma, stigma reduction, disability-inclusive programming, prejudice, stereotype/stereotyping, shame, discrimination, exclusion.
Disability stigma remains a pervasive barrier to disability inclusion in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Rohwerder 2019; Barbareschi et al. 2021), yet its impact is often overlooked or not fully considered in disability-inclusive programming (Saran et al. 2023). A systematic review found that disability stigma resulted in adverse outcomes such as physical and psychological trauma, high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, low levels of self-confidence and self-esteem, and adverse impacts on educational attainment, employment opportunities, overall economic wellbeing, and political participation (Virendrakumar et al. 2021). The degree of disability stigma experienced can differ depending on impairment type and severity, and people with disabilities may experience other forms of intersectional stigma because of factors such as gender, age, poverty status, and location (Tefera et al. 2018; Rohwerder 2019; Virendrakumar et al. 2021).
BBC Media Action Madubi radio drama recording with actors with disabilities in Nigeria
Photo credit BBC Media Action
Early conceptualisations posited that stigma occurs when a characteristic, such as disability, is considered discreditable and treated by others as such (Goffman 1963). Understandings of stigma were developed further with Link and Phelan (2001) defining stigma as a process involving labelling of difference, stereotyping (i.e. negative associations with that difference), and prejudice (i.e. endorsement of the negative stereotypes) combining to result in discrimination against the stigmatised individual or group, and occurs in situations where there is a power imbalance (ibid.). Further conceptualisations of stigma have broken it down into different types of stigma, recognising the different ways in which stigma is experienced, to better guide stigma reduction interventions and policies (van Brakel et al. 2019; Stangl et al. 2019). Drawing on several theoretical framings of stigma (van Brakel et al. 2019; Stangl et al. 2019; Corrigan (2005); Weiss, Ramakrishna and Somma 2006), we use a model in this article adapted by Zuurmond et al. (2024) that distinguishes the following stigma types:
Disability stigma is a multilevel social process bound up in intersectionality and has a diverse range of drivers and facilitators which can make it complex to understand and influence effectively (Virendrakumar et al. 2021). Given the complexity of the different types of disability stigma, programmes aimed at tackling disability stigma in LMICs use interventions at the intrapersonal (individual), interpersonal (family, community), organisational/institutional, and structural level, or at multiple levels (Smythe, Adelson and Polack 2020). Disability stigma reduction strategies have included a mix of education/training; social contact; community-based rehabilitation; support groups; home care teams; advocacy; constructive discourse; protest; and social networking (ibid.; Thornicroft et al. 2022). Of all the stigma reduction interventions, positive contact (direct or indirect) between people with a stigmatised identity and those without was found to be one of the most effective evidence-based ways to reduce stigmatisation (Thornicroft et al. 2022).
However, three different systematic reviews found that the ‘evidence base on stigma reduction interventions for people with disabilities is weak’ (Saran et al. 2023: 28), with information on the approaches to tackle disability stigma and the impact of them, generally lacking (Smythe et al. 2020; Virendrakumar et al. 2021). Existing studies use varied frameworks to understand stigma (or none at all) and a diversity of stigma reduction approach combinations; and interventions are often poorly described (Virendrakumar et al. 2021). Therefore, further learning and future research on efforts to tackle disability stigma is needed.
Drawing on these different framings, this article shares evidence and learning about disability stigma and stigma reduction from the Disability Inclusive Development Inclusive Futures (hereafter Inclusive Futures) programme (2018–26), which worked across Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Bangladesh, and Nepal. The focus was on health, education, and livelihoods, with stigma addressed, both as the fourth standalone theme – reduction in negative stereotyping and discrimination – and as a crosscutting issue within the health, education, and livelihoods projects of the Inclusive Futures programme.
This article synthesises learning and research findings from 11 papers from three areas of research in the Inclusive Futures programme which considered stigma. The methodologies of the included papers are outlined below.
A technical report examining disability-related stigma reduction in the Inclusive Futures programme used a mixed-methods approach, combining a review of programme documents with qualitative research in Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Kenya (focus group discussions and key informant interviews) (Zuurmond et al. 2024). Drafting of learning questions, agreement on the data extraction and analysis, and discussion of emerging themes was guided by a Validation Group, consisting of 30 global and national members across the programme. The framing for analysis was informed by the stigma model already detailed in Section 1 (ibid.). This was developed further into a learning paper (Morris et al. 2025).
Qualitative, participatory research was conducted by the Institute of Development Studies into the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the lives of marginalised people with disabilities in Bangladesh and Nepal (Rohwerder et al. 2021), inclusive education in Kenya (Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023a, 2023b; Wickenden, Rohwerder and Njungi 2022) and Nigeria (Wickenden et al. 2023), and inclusive livelihoods in Bangladesh (Shaw and Wickenden 2022, 2024; Wickenden and Thompson 2023), and included stigma as part of the analysis. Methodologies used included narrative methods (the pandemic and Bangladesh research); focus group discussions (the Kenya research); peer researchers (the Kenya research); creative methods (the Bangladesh research); participatory workshops (the Bangladesh and Nigeria research); and collective analysis (the Kenya research).
BBC Media Action shared research findings about its two multimedia projects (radio dramas and related social media content) in Nigeria aimed at addressing disability stigma (Penny, Gautam and Stuart 2022), including within inclusive family-planning programming (BBC Media Action 2024). Both sets of research drew on evaluations involving large-scale quantitative surveys and qualitative research (focus group discussions and key informant interviews) (Penny et al. 2022; BBC Media Action 2024).
In analysing the data and learning from the different Inclusive Futures papers, we have used the concept of stigma and its different types to interpret the different ways people with disabilities speak about the stigma they experience and its impacts. It is important to note that the types of stigma and their impacts are often interlinked and serve to reinforce one another. The synthesis also draws out the main themes emerging about efforts to tackle stigma.
Disability stigma was found to impact across different elements of the lives of people with disabilities, negatively affecting their sense of self and emotional wellbeing, how they are treated by others, their access to education, health care, and livelihoods, and increasing their social isolation, creating a barrier to inclusion in daily life and to the Inclusive Futures programme projects (Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023a; Wickenden and Thompson 2023; Shaw and Wickenden 2024; Zuurmond et al. 2024). As one key informant warned, ‘Don’t under-estimate stigma and discrimination. It is putting up barriers and holding back people from accessing services’ (Zuurmond et al. 2024: 3).
The technical review found that the term ‘stigma’ is not always easily understood, and people were more likely to articulate stigma using everyday language, such as myths and taboos, barriers, their own feelings, and treatment by others (Zuurmond et al. 2024). There were mixed views on how useful the term is: that it can be valuable for some stakeholders; that different types of stigma can be overlooked; and that it may be seen as a negative term for some. A key learning was that it is vital to work with people with disabilities to understand what stigma means to them.
While some might argue that the term ‘stigma’ can be too complex, there can also be danger in an oversimplification (or dilution) of the concept (Sheehan et al. 2016). The implications of our learning are discussed in Section 4.1, which points to the need for better shared conceptual understanding of stigma in its different forms, across stakeholders, and including people with disabilities.
The most common aspect of stigma that was discussed by those involved in the Inclusive Futures programme was social stigma, including perceived social stigma, and the barriers to participation that it created, especially because of discriminatory behaviour (Zuurmond et al. 2024). Expectations of people with disabilities are often low due to disability stigma (Wickenden et al. 2022; Zuurmond et al. 2024), with a respondent in Nigeria stating that ‘Because of the lack of awareness, some people they feel that people with disabilities are useless and cannot do anything’ (Penny et al. 2022: 9).
Social stigma made finding employment more challenging for people with disabilities (Rohwerder et al. 2021). In Bangladesh, people with disabilities are often perceived to be a burden, incapable, and some community members do not use services provided by them as a result (Wickenden and Thompson 2023). One woman mentioned that ‘Many people don’t give me work as I am person with disabilities. I felt really bad about it at that time’ (ibid.: 34).
Low expectations and protectiveness from family or friends mean that some parents keep their children with disabilities out of school or from playing with others, or keep women with disabilities from attending work opportunities (Penny et al. 2022; Shaw and Wickenden 2022; Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023a; Wickenden et al. 2023; Wickenden and Thompson 2023). In Kenya, disability stigma also meant that parents of children without disabilities did not want children with disabilities in the same classrooms (Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023a, 2023b).
Research in Nigeria found that stigmatisation from family, community members, and health workers was a barrier for women and girls with disabilities in accessing the health services they require, including family-planning services (BBC Media Action 2024). Likewise, fear of being stigmatised prevented people with disabilities from accessing eye health care (Morris et al. 2025).
Stigmatisation can also result in violence, with concerns reported by children, parents, and teachers about the bullying of children with disabilities, which affects their participation and emotional wellbeing (Wickenden et al. 2022; Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023a; Wickenden et al. 2023). A parent in Kenya said, ‘The child has a difficulty because when he is in class the other children laugh at him. He feels like he is in jail. He likes hiding from school’ (Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023a: 2250). In Bangladesh, adults with disabilities also spoke of regular experiences of mocking, bullying, or taunting, which left them feeling sad and isolated (Rohwerder et al. 2021; Wickenden and Thompson 2023; Shaw and Wickenden 2024). Such negative experiences can mean that people with disabilities may fear leaving their comfort zones which restricts participation in education, livelihoods, and other opportunities (Shaw and Wickenden 2022).
Stigma contributed to the social exclusion, isolation, and loneliness of people with disabilities (Shaw and Wickenden 2024; Wickenden et al. 2022, 2023). A BBC Media Action survey in Nigeria found that while respondents were more comfortable having a person with a disability as a friend or colleague, or for their child to be in the same class as a child with a disability, they were ‘less comfortable with the idea of someone close to them being in a romantic relationship with a person with a disability, or having a person with a disability as an elected local representative’ (Penny et al. 2022: 11).
While internalised stigma was spoken about less, evidence from the programme shows that stigmatising experiences can be deeply felt, and people with disabilities may internalise negative attitudes about their perceived capacities and potential, resulting in low self-esteem, negative self-perceptions, and poor mental health (Shaw and Wickenden 2022, 2024; Wickenden and Thompson 2023). As one partner in Bangladesh mentioned, ‘In my personal opinion I saw internal stigma the most… We saw people had views that they were “good for nothing” and it was difficult to remove this’ (Zuurmond et al. 2024: 23).
Internalised stigma can begin early if their family does not value a child with disabilities. A woman with disabilities in Nigeria noted that,
The first thing a lady thinks of when she gave birth to a disabled child was that he was useless. I can accomplish nothing with that youngster.... As you can see, the child’s self‑esteem is declining. Thus, stigma in my opinion begins at home and spreads across society.
(Zuurmond et al. 2024: 33)
Internalised stigma can make it challenging for people with disabilities to participate in things like livelihoods programmes, as they may lack the confidence and self-belief to believe in their own abilities and see the value in their participation (Shaw and Wickenden 2022; Wickenden and Thompson 2023; Zuurmond et al. 2024). Internalised stigma can cause people with disabilities to blame themselves for the bad treatment they receive, rather than viewing their situation from a rights-based approach (Wickenden and Thompson 2023; Zuurmond et al. 2024).
Stigma by association was mentioned less by participants than the other forms of stigma (Zuurmond et al. 2024). However, the evidence that does exist shows that family members of people with disabilities who experienced stigmatisation were isolated, which can make it harder for them to cope and support their child or adult family member with disabilities (Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023b; Wickenden et al. 2023; Zuurmond et al. 2024). In Nigeria, it was noted that ‘Some parents don’t patronise where she [mother] sells her goods due to her child’s disability’ (Wickenden et al. 2023: 17). Worries about stigma by association also extend to employers who ‘didn’t want to employ people with disabilities as [they] didn’t think they would be seen positively in store’ (Zuurmond et al. 2024: 42).
Within the Inclusive Futures programme technical review, there was more limited attention to structural stigma compared to the other forms of stigma. While there were many examples of local advocacy being conducted in the Inclusive Futures projects, direct links to reducing structural stigma were not always explicit (Zuurmond et al. 2024). In the inclusive education programme in Kenya, for example, parents and teachers talked about the lack of accessible teaching, school materials, and classrooms, both in terms of physical materials/environment, teacher’s skills, and wider systems of support, but they did not describe it as a form of structural stigma (Wickenden et al. 2022; Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023a).
Given the amount of work conducted by the Inclusive Futures programme on structural and systemic issues, such as laws, policies, and organisational systems, it is vital that how this links to stigma reduction is better understood. This may require more explicit research on this topic. It also highlights the need to have greater clarity within a theory of change on how addressing systemic issues links into stigma reduction.
Not all people with disabilities face the same levels of stigma, with some impairment types more stigmatised than others. In Nigeria, in a BBC Media Action survey of attitudes around disability, this was discussed in terms of levels of comfort around people with disabilities, and ‘Respondents said they would/do feel more comfortable around with someone with a physical impairment than someone with a visual impairment, and they would/do feel least comfortable with someone with an intellectual disability’ (Penny et al. 2022: 11). In the education project in Nigeria, the children that the parents mentioned experiencing the most bullying (mocking) from others in the community were children with albinism (Wickenden et al. 2023).
Gender was also found to be a factor across the Inclusive Futures programme, with women with disabilities recognised as experiencing greater levels of stigma due to the double layer they experience from being a woman. In Kenya and Nigeria, for example, they were more likely to be seen as unmarriageable compared to men with disabilities (Zuurmond et al. 2024).
Intersecting stigma also means that women and girls with disabilities often face an increased risk of abuse, as stigma about women with disabilities being sexually active can contribute to gender-based and intimate partner violence, and their social isolation may make them less likely to communicate about the violence they experience (Shaw and Wickenden 2022; Wickenden and Thompson 2023; Zuurmond et al. 2024). Other characteristics which shape people’s experiences of stigma included socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity, and religion, and living in a rural or urban setting (Zuurmond et al. 2024).
Research and learning from the Inclusive Futures programme indicates the importance of taking into account the role of disability stigma in disability-inclusive programming, yet there is a research gap around approaches used for disability stigma reduction (Smythe et al. 2020; Virendrakumar et al. 2021; Saran et al. 2023). Below are four learnings that have emerged from the programme, which point to areas for future research and evidence gathering. They build upon the challenges and learnings about tackling disability stigma from the Inclusive Futures programme.
The lack of a shared conceptualisation of stigma contributed to many Inclusive Futures projects not having stigma reduction as an explicit outcome and not being intentional in how they were going to reduce stigma through their interventions (Zuurmond et al. 2024). The lack of intentionality is an area that could be strengthened in future disability-inclusive development-focused programmes, while the lack of a shared understanding of stigma causes challenges for measurement of stigma reduction and shared learning (ibid.), made more difficult by the issues with finding suitable stigma measurement tools (Virendrakumar et al. 2021). Many Inclusive Futures projects did not measure stigma, and the measurement of stigma was seen as challenging (Zuurmond et al. 2024).
To strengthen stigma reduction efforts, there needs to be a contextual analysis of the underlying drivers and root causes of stigma to better understand the role of the different stigma types, the key drivers, and their impact, as well as the role intersectional factors may play in people’s experiences of disability stigma (Zuurmond et al. 2024). This should lead to more intentional design of stigma reduction approaches with stigma reduction as a measurable outcome. Support and guidance needs to be provided in relation to the measurement of stigma, backed by more research into what works. A participatory situational analysis, engaging people with disabilities, in the early stages, can guide the prioritisation of stigma reduction activities and contribute to ensuring that clear metrics of change are agreed and measured (ibid.).
In the Inclusive Futures programme, the participation of people with disabilities was found to be important at all stages of project design and implementation (ibid.), in line with broader findings from Thornicroft et al. (2022) that anti-stigma programmes are most effective when they involve people with lived experience as co-producers.
In addition, in line with other research about stigma reduction which highlights the important role social contact plays (ibid.), the value of direct engagement between people with and without disabilities in the delivery of stigma work and other areas of programming was repeatedly raised as important within the Inclusive Futures programme (Penny et al. 2022; Zuurmond et al. 2024). This can be within family, community, educational, health, or workplace settings to shift attitudes, norms, and behaviours.
Different projects in the Inclusive Futures programme used Inclusion Champions or Disability Inclusion Facilitators, who were commonly people with disabilities and local leaders. They were the cornerstones of many Inclusive Futures projects, addressing different types of stigma through a combination of training and advocacy, role modelling, as well as engagement with families and peer-to-peer support (Zuurmond et al. 2024).
A key emerging theme from the Disability Inclusion Facilitators was the central role they play in working with people with disabilities; namely, building their capacity and feelings of selfesteem and confidence, and addressing the issue of internalised stigma (ibid.). The learning suggests that people with disabilities then have stronger agency to change the narrative around stigma than they previously did. Additional research to explore the mechanisms of change would be valuable, including the role of ongoing mentoring.
Supporting people with disabilities and Organisations of Persons with Disabilities to build their technical capacity on stigma, including the types of stigma and how they can be reduced, can strengthen stigma reduction efforts (ibid.). Reasonable accommodation to ensure they can participate equally and budget to cover their costs of engagement is needed, as well as structured opportunities to use their insights and learning about stigma reduction in projects (ibid.). Given the insidious nature of internalised stigma, sustained support post-training may be needed, as well as a mental health component (ibid.).
Beyond a direct focus on stigma reduction, work across the Inclusive Futures programme found participation and empowerment of people with disabilities to be ‘both an outcome and a key mechanism to address stigma’ (Zuurmond et al. 2024: 6). Increased knowledge and skills because of their involvement in livelihoods training or participatory research, for example, boosted the self-esteem and self-confidence of people with disabilities, and challenged internalised stigma, even if this was not an explicit aim of, or measured within, the projects (Wickenden and Thompson 2023; Shaw and Wickenden 2024; Zuurmond et al. 2024).
A multifaceted approach with activities that intentionally target different types of stigma, and at different levels of society, using a combination of tactics such as contact (both direct and indirect) between people who do and do not have disabilities, education and dialogue, skills building, and advocacy, was found to be necessary for successful stigma reduction (Zuurmond et al. 2024).
Stigma reduction in the Inclusive Futures programme was integrated within peer education for people with disabilities, caregiver support groups, community dialogue, community radio, health and education service provider training, advocacy and policy influencing, for example. Focused stigma reduction efforts were also delivered through radio and social media messaging, with topics on stereotypes, labelling, disability language, challenging myths and misconceptions (e.g. lowered expectations and overprotective attitudes from family or friends around romantic relationships), and including positive representation of characters with disabilities in education and work, and opportunities for dialogue and direct contact through phone‑ins (Penny et al. 2022; Zuurmond et al. 2024). Some of these approaches would benefit from further research.
In a family-planning project in Nigeria, activities were designed to both empower and educate young people with disabilities and their caregivers who experience stigma, while also targeting community members, influencers, and people in positions of power who perpetuate stigma, including training for service providers and advocacy towards policymakers. However, partners highlighted a gap in engaging religious leaders (Zuurmond et al. 2024). Engaging with those in positions of power, in particular, is important. For example, in Kenya, engaging teachers in the prevention of bullying improved the experiences of social and internalised stigma of children with disabilities (Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023b). Thus, it is important to map out the contextual dynamics of power and social influence to help inform stigma reduction efforts and who you need to influence to change behaviours (Zuurmond et al. 2024).
There was a recognition that stigma is experienced in a family and community over a lifetime, and therefore it is unlikely to be impacted by one-off awareness and training sessions and short‑term interventions on disability stigma. Changing deep-seated stigmatising beliefs and social norms takes time and is likely to require multiple approaches, targeting different layers of society, and different forms of stigma over a prolonged time period (ibid.). This can also pose a challenge for the measurement of stigma reduction efforts.
Given that the family environment is often the starting point for internalised stigma, it is important to work with families early on in their children’s lives, and in Kenya, it was found that support for parents improved their relationships with their children with disabilities (Wickenden, Njungi and Rohwerder 2023b; Zuurmond et al. 2024).
Stigma reduction approaches should move away from an emphasis on education provision in a single or short package of activities, and move towards creating space and opportunity for dialogue, to help challenge ingrained forms of stigma (Zuurmond et al. 2024).
Opportunities for dialogue should be tailored to the local context. For example, radio drama in Nigeria reached a wide audience and, importantly, included an element of phone-in discussion prompted by the drama to create opportunities for dialogue to challenge and change stigmatising views (ibid.).
Addressing ingrained stigma also requires an understanding of the complexity of power at different levels (within the family, community, and wider society) and working with power holders to create an environment where stigma can be talked about and challenged.
Tackling structural stigma is important for long-term change and examples of this in the Inclusive Futures programme included local and national advocacy to ensure disability laws and policies are enforced. However, more research is needed into effective ways to uphold laws, in particular how to censure discriminatory practices, as part of any stigma reduction approach (ibid.). In addition, changing organisational culture - for example, the embedding of people with disabilities within organisations - can be an important way to change attitudes and shift organisational culture (ibid.). Research into other stigma reduction strategies employed by development programmes to be effective at a structural level should be explored.
Learning from the Inclusive Futures programme indicates that disability stigma, whether social, structural, internalised, or stigma by association, continues to have a major impact on the lives of people with disabilities, exacerbating their marginalisation and social exclusion, and resulting in low self-esteem and diminished wellbeing. Disability stigma also stymies efforts to improve disability inclusion across a range of development programming in health, education, and livelihoods. However, as a concept, stigma is not uniformly translatable across countries or understood in the same way. This can make it harder to have a shared understanding of stigma and intentionally plan for stigma reduction, as well as to measure it and efforts to reduce it.
Thus, when designing interventions to reduce stigma, it is important to establish a shared understanding of stigma from the beginning. Creating opportunities for positive contact between people with and without disabilities is an important component in stigma reduction efforts, alongside involving and partnering with people with disabilities. Power plays an important role in sustaining or perpetuating disability stigma, and interventions must take this into account. As disability stigma manifests itself in different ways and at different levels, a multifaceted approach, encompassing many different types of interventions, is needed to tackle it. Disability stigma is deeply embedded in many contexts, and changing social norms takes time and persistence. More research about these approaches would strengthen the evidence around disability stigma reduction efforts in development programming.
1 This issue of the IDS Bulletin was supported by UK aid under its flagship Disability Inclusive Development (DID) programme. The DID programme was delivered through two separate programmes. The eight-year consortium intervention, Disability Inclusive Development Inclusive Futures (Inclusive Futures) programme, led by Sightsavers and the International Disability Alliance, ran from August 2018 to March 2026. It has reached more than 19 million people and generated almost 300 learning and evidence resources to inform policy and practice on disability-inclusive development. The evaluation programme, the Programme for Evidence to Inform Disability Action (PENDA), was delivered by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. The opinions expressed are the authors’ own and do not reflect the views of the funders.
2 Brigitte Rohwerder, Researcher, Institute of Development Studies, UK.
3 Maria Zuurmond, independent consultant, Impel Consultancy, UK.
4 Cathy Stephen, Global Technical Lead, Sightsavers, UK.
5 Josephine Njungi, Director, Strategy and Planning, Research PLUS Africa, Kenya.
6 Elizabeth Ogutu, freelance researcher, Kenya.
Barbareschi, G.; Carew, M.T.; Johnson, E.A.; Kopi, N. and Holloway, C. (2021) ‘ “When They See a Wheelchair, They’ve Not Even Seen Me” – Factors Shaping the Experience of Disability Stigma and Discrimination in Kenya’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18.8: 4272, DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084272
BBC Media Action (2024) Using Radio Drama to Tackle Attitudes Towards Family Planning in Northern Nigeria, Research Summary, London: BBC Media Action
Corrigan, P. (2005) On the Stigma of Mental Illness: Practical Strategies for Research and Social Change, Washington DC: American Psychological Association
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall
Link, B.G. and Phelan, J.C. (2001) ‘Conceptualizing Stigma’, Annual Review of Sociology 27.1: 363–85
Morris, L.; Stephen, C.; Walsh, C.; Wapling, L. and Zuurmond, M. (2025) Breaking Down Barriers to Inclusion: Tackling Disability Stigma, Haywards Heath: Sightsavers
Penny, A.; Gautam, M. and Stuart, A. (2022) Using Radio Drama to Tackle Disability Discrimination in Nigeria, London: BBC Media Action
Rohwerder, B. (2019) Disability Stigma in the Disability Inclusive Development (DID) Programme Countries: An Overview of the Evidence, Haywards Heath and Brighton: Inclusive Futures and Institute of Development Studies
Rohwerder, B. et al. (2021) ‘Because of Covid, Everything is a Mess’: How Have People with Disabilities Experienced the Pandemic in Nepal and Bangladesh?, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, DOI: 10.19088/IF.2021.001 (accessed 27 November 2025)
Saran, A.; Hunt, X.; White, H. and Kuper, H. (2023) ‘Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving Social Inclusion Outcomes for People with Disabilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review’, Campbell Systematic Reviews 19.1: e1316, DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1316
Shaw, J. and Wickenden, M. (2024) ‘ “I am Pleased to Share my Thoughts and Opinions” – Including Marginalised People with Disabilities in Inclusive Qualitative Research in Bangladesh Through Creative, Relational Methodologies’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 23: 1–20
Shaw, J. and Wickenden, M. (2022) Insights from Inclusive Participatory Fieldwork with Learners with Deafblindness and Other Marginalised Impairments, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, DOI: 10.19088/IDS.2023.014 (accessed 27 November 2025)
Sheehan, L. et al. (2016) ‘Stigma by Any Other Name’, Psychiatric Services 67.12: 1373–5
Smythe, T.; Adelson, J.D. and Polack, S. (2020) ‘Systematic Review of Interventions for Reducing Stigma Experienced by Children with Disabilities and their Families in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: State of the Evidence’, Tropical Medicine and International Health 25.5: 508–24, DOI: 10.1111/tmi.13388
Stangl, A.L. et al. (2019) ‘The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework: A Global, Crosscutting Framework to Inform Research, Intervention Development, and Policy on Health- Related Stigmas’, BMC Med 17.31, DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1271-3
Tefera, B. et al. (2018) ‘Education, Work, and Motherhood in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Review of Equality Challenges and Opportunities for Women with Disabilities’, Social Inclusion 6.1: 82–93
Thornicroft, G. et al. (2022) ‘The Lancet Commission on Ending Stigma and Discrimination in Mental Health’, The Lancet Commissions 400.10361: 1438–80, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01470-2
van Brakel, W.H. et al. (2019) ‘Out of the Silos: Identifying Cross-Cutting Features of Health-Related Stigma to Advance Measurement and Intervention’, BMC Med 17.1: 13, DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1245-x
Virendrakumar, B.; Stephen, C.; Jolley, E. and Schmidt, E. (2021) Disability-Related Stigma and Discrimination in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia: A Systematic Literature Review, Haywards Heath: Sightsavers
Weiss, M.G.; Ramakrishna, J. and Somma, D. (2006) ‘Health- Related Stigma: Rethinking Concepts and Interventions’, Psychology, Health and Medicine 11.3: 277–87, DOI: 10.1080/13548500600595053
Wickenden, M. and Thompson, S. (2023) Insights from Qualitative Inclusive, Participatory Fieldwork with Learners with Deafblindness and Women with Disabilities in Bangladesh: Phase Two, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, DOI: 10.19088/IDS.2023.032 (accessed 27 November 2025)
Wickenden, M.; Njungi, J. and Rohwerder, B. (2023a) ‘Inclusive Early Childhood Development and Education in Kenya: What do Parents, Teachers and Children Understand, Perceive and Experience?’, Disability and the Global South 10.1: 2232–62
Wickenden, M.; Njungi, J. and Rohwerder, B. (2023b) Children with Disabilities’, Their Parents’ and Teachers’ Changing Perceptions and Experiences of Disability Inclusive ECDE in 2 Sites in Kenya, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, DOI: 10.19088/IDS.2023.052 (accessed 27 November 2025)
Wickenden, M.; Rohwerder, B. and Njungi, J. (2022) Experiences and Expectations of Inclusive Pre-Primary Education in Kenya: Reporting the Results of the First Round of Focus Group Discussions in Homa Bay and Kakuma, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, DOI: 10.19088/IDS.2022.055 (accessed 27 November 2025)
Wickenden, M.; Thompson, S.; Adekeye, O. and Gwani, N. (2023) Report on Development of Children with Disabilities’ and Parents’ Wellbeing and Inclusion Checklist Tool 2023 – Phase 2, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, DOI: 10.19088/IDS.2023.054 (accessed 27 November 2025)
Zuurmond, M.; Wapling, L.; Stephen, C.; Corby, N. and Walsh, C. (2024) Learning on Disability Stigma Reduction: Concepts of Stigma, Implementing Activities to Reduce Stigma and Demonstrating Change in the Disability Inclusive Development – Inclusive Futures Programme, Impel Consultancy
© 2026 The Authors. IDS Bulletin © Institute of Development Studies | DOI: 10.19088/1968-2026.157 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited and any modifications or adaptations are indicated.
The IDS Bulletin is published by Institute of Development Studies, Library Road, Brighton, BN1 9RE, UK. This article is part of IDS Bulletin Vol. 57 No. 1 March 2026 ‘Building Disability-Inclusive Futures’; the Introduction is also recommended reading.