top of page

Understanding Disability: Some Theories and Models

Date: 27/01/22

Author Name: Lavanya Kaushal

Qualifications: B.A. (Hons) in Psychology, M.A. Applied Psychology (Specialisation in Clinical Psychology)

Designation: Former Consultant Psychologist, ACRO Mental Health Services.

Word count: 2,520

Reviewed and edited by: Sareem Ather, Mariyam Mohammed, Ayesha Begum, Navya Peri and Aishwarya Krishna Priya

Disability is a word that holds different meanings in various contexts, in fact, even among other individuals (1,2). Ask one person what they mean by disability, and their answer will likely differ a lot from what another person says it is (3). The meaning of this term has also changed over time (4). Broadly, however, disability reflects an interaction between features of a person’s body and parts of the society in which he or she lives (5,6). The World Health Organisation defines disability as “a complex phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives” (7). Friedman and Owen also give a similar definition of disability as a complex phenomenon that includes preventing or slowing the action, an atypical function, a lack of independence, and a socially constructed obstacle (8).

Disability is most commonly defined with respect to how the person’s body interacts with the world around them.

While there is a multitude of issues that are classified as being a “disability”, these are usually categorised under two broad categories. First are the visible disabilities, which are obvious and easy to notice (9,10). Down syndrome, paralysis, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis are a few disabilities that fall under this category of disabilities (11). Invisible disabilities, on the other hand, are the ones that are not very apparent (12). Examples include learning disabilities, mental disorders, and anaemia (13). These disabilities are often more stigmatised and misunderstood than visible ones since they are not obvious (14,15).

The definitions of disability, as mentioned above, are based on a variety of different models, each of which conceptualises disability in a unique manner (16). Some of the most well-known and prominent models of disability are as follows (17).

“I am disabled because God wanted me to be that way”- The Moral/Religious model

The moral/religious model of disability is perhaps the oldest model of disability and is based on the belief that disability is a punishment from an all-powerful entity and/or a result of non-adherence to social morality and religious proclamations that discourage people from engaging in a certain behaviour (18,19). Another belief in this model is that disability is a punishment of a sin that may have been committed by a person’s ancestors (20). This model was particularly common in the industrialised countries, wherein people with HIV/AIDS were stigmatised and ostracised to a much greater extent than today (21,22).

Another way this model plays out is when disability is seen as a blessing from God (23). According to this, Individuals with disabilities are selected by a higher power to carry out some purpose on Earth (24,25). We may have heard of such examples in India, wherein children born with extra limbs or body parts were considered reincarnations of Hindu gods and goddesses and thus revered by local people (26).

Female babies born with extra limbs are often seen as a reincarnation/form of Goddess Durga in India.

Needless to say, subscribing to this model may instil a lot of sense of shame into the individual and their family (27). However, thanks to developing other models of disability based on better knowledge, this model is no longer that common, except in a few theological groups and communities (28).

“I am disabled, I am suffering, and I need your help”- The Charity Model

We all must have seen certain ads that show images and videos of men, women and children suffering from serious physical disabilities and ask for donations to improve their lives (29,30). What do you feel when you look at those ads? Sympathy, or perhaps pity. (31) If that is the case, you most likely view disability through the charity model (32,33). According to Duyan, the charity model sees people with disabilities as victims and the disability itself as a deficit (34). They are seen as being reliant on others and are unable to help themselves (35). Therefore, they must be provided with special care and welfare in order for them to be looked after (36,37).

Many depictions of disability are like this picture, which evokes a sense of pity.

There is no doubt that this model takes on a much more humane and benevolent approach to disability and aims to benefit people with disabilities (38). However, many have questioned whether it is worth depicting them as helpless and destitute (39). Such depictions of people with disabilities as dependent charity cases have aided in getting money through donations as well as garnering vocal support for their needs (40,41). At the same time, this has come at the cost of devaluation of their lives and exaggeration of their helplessness (42).

“My disability is a problem, and I must find a solution”- The Medical Model (43)

The medical model, also known as the individual model, is a model which is in notable use today (44,45). There are two main beliefs that form the foundation of this model. First, disability is located within the individual (46).

Second, functional and psychological limitations that arise from a person’s disability are seen as the root cause behind their problems (47,48). In other words, overcoming disability is the main theme of this model, and it states that the responsibility for “curing” disability is that of the individual who has it (49). This model is also known as the “personal tragedy” model, mainly because it is seen as an inherently negative thing that is tragic for the individual who has it, as well as their families (50). This model may play out when a lecturer refuses to send a copy of class notes in advance for a student with a learning disability (51,52).

The medical model aims at finding a cure for the disability through means like surgery, physiotherapy etc.

While this model has helped in seeing disability as something that can potentially be managed instead of taking on the “disabled people are helpless” approach of the moral/religious and charity models (53). However, it has been criticised heavily by many disability activists for multiple reasons.(54,55) The main point of their criticism is that this model sees disability as a deviation from what is “normal” (56).

As a result, people who subscribe to this model consider disability as something to be solved and often reduce the individual’s existence to nothing more than the disability itself (57). It does not take into consideration law & policy changes that would aid in making environmental changes to help people with disabilities to master their environments (58,59).

Moreover, this model gives immense power to medical and healthcare professionals to diagnose people based on certain standards of normalcy, which makes it very easy for people with disabilities to be labelled as “failures”, “cripples”, “invalids” and so on, which can lead to increased stigma and discrimination against such individuals (60,61).

“My disability comes from systemic and societal barriers.”- The Social Model (62)

The social model aims to reverse what the medical model states (63). In essence, this model sees disability as a condition that occurs due to an interaction between the individual’s impairment and the environment, which can be disabling or enabling in different ways (64,65). The problem does not necessarily lie within the individual and their limitations, but rather the society which puts up barriers, some of which include poverty and economic dependence, prejudice and discrimination, isolation and segregation, passivity, inadequate education, lack of jobs, inaccessible transportation, infrastructures and services (66). For example, buildings that have stairs but no ramps or elevators, no tactile paving etc., can pose a great problem for those who might have physical or visual disabilities (67).

Another important aspect of this model is the distinction it draws between impairment and disability (68). While impairment is individual and private, disability is seen as structural and public (69,70). Unlike the medical model, wherein medical professionals aim to seek a solution or cure for the impairment, the social model aims to accept the impairment but remove disability, which is seen as a culturally and historically specific phenomenon, not a universal and unchanging essence (71,72).

Provisions like ramps, step-free routes and lifts come from the social model of disability.

Inherently, this model offers a lot of power to change the perception of disabled individuals.(73)The person does not have to change; society does. Rather than feeling self-pity, the person can feel anger and pride in themselves (74,75). Also, by identifying social barriers to be removed, this model has been successful in the liberation of disabled people instrumentally (76). While this may seem like an ideal model, it is not free of limitations.(77) The first problem lies in the extent to which the model neglects impairment and often risks implying that impairment is not a problem at all when in reality, it can be. (78) Secondly, the concept of a barrier-free society can be possible only in some settings like urban cities (79). Barrier-free enclaves are definitely possible, but not a barrier-free world (80,81). How can an individual with motor issues who uses a wheelchair navigate through a rocky beach or an ancient structure?(82)Similarly, how can an individual with visual impairments fully enjoy sunsets or rainbows?(83) It is also important to keep in mind that accommodating people with physical and sensory disabilities is relatively easier (84). It is difficult to define what a barrier free society would look like for someone who, say, is neurodivergent or is having a mental health concern (85).

“Though I am disabled, I deserve the same rights as everyone.”- The Rights-based Model (86)

The rights-based model mainly focuses on the fact that everyone should have fundamental human rights, such as the right to equal opportunities & participation in society (87). As a result, society has to change, not only to remove barriers but to ensure that all people, including people with disabilities, have equal prospects for participation in society (88,89). Quite a lot of times, people with disabilities don't have access to certain basic rights, such as the right to education and employment, or right to healthcare (both physical and psychological) (90). Therefore, laws and policies promote non-discrimination and equal opportunities.(91) Here, the question is not about charity or humanity but basic rights that any human can claim, irrespective of their background (92). Laws and policies, such as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, are based on this model of understanding disability (93,94).

The rights-based model talks about granting equal rights to every human being, including people with disabilities.

The rights-based model is similar to the social model, but these two models have six key differences (95).

1. The rights-based model takes into account how a person with disabilities is likely to face challenging life situations and argues that such factors should be taken into account if we are to develop relevant social justice theories, unlike the social model, which does not give much importance to individual impairment (96).

2. Second, while the social model provides an understanding of social factors that shape the concept of disability, the rights-based model additionally provides a framework on the basis of which affirmative action can be encouraged (97).

3. This model incorporates not only civil rights but also economic, social and cultural rights and thus is broader in scope (98).

4. Unlike the social model, the right based model recognises the importance of individual identity and also looks at the specific socio-cultural backgrounds of individuals with disabilities (99).

5. The rights-based model advocates for properly formulated policies that may or may not involve the prevention of impairment, while the social model is against it (100).

6. The social model offers an explanation of disability, while the rights-based model can offer solutions to improve the lives of people with disabilities (101).

“I am disabled, and therefore you need to protect me”- The Social Paternalistic model.

The paternalistic social model of disability is similar to the charity model, suggesting that people with disabilities are weak and in need of protection (102). As a consequence, it is the duty of the more “powerful” members of the society- non-disabled individuals- to take care of them and make decisions for their wellbeing (103). This model can be illustrated with an example of a person who does not invite a disabled individual to a party, assuming that they would feel uncomfortable (105). Here, the decision has been made on behalf of the person with disabilities without actually knowing their opinion (106).

People with disabilities are considered to be dependent on those who are not.

The crux of this model is the idea of “can’t do”. This is quite alarming because frequently being told that you “can’t do” certain things are likely to develop a mindset among people with disabilities that they are restricted and have to rely on others for everyday tasks (107). While this model is not intended to be harmful, invariably, it creates and encourages dependency and also limits opportunities for growth (108).

“I am disabled, and I can change the way people see me”- The Empowerment Model.

The empowerment model states that people with disabilities are responsible for changing how non-disabled individuals perceive disability (109). It puts major emphasis on the fact that people with disabilities must advocate for themselves, and it is not sufficient to just say that society must change its approach (110). They have to take matters into their own hands and change the perception that others have of them. This can happen only if they can prove they are not “helpless” individuals as others think (111). As per society, a person cannot be treated as non-dependent if they are dependent on someone. Nondependent, however, does not mean complete independence and not needing any assistance (112). All human beings need assistance and aid at different points in life, and it is unrealistic to assume that a person can live in isolation without being dependent on anyone (113). Rather, non-dependence means that, to the greatest extent possible, people with disabilities need to be the leader in identifying their needs and then instruct others in ways of helping them, to accomplish their needs and goals in life (114).

The empowerment model focuses on what people with disabilities can do by themselves.

Building strong self-esteem is one of the key factors in the empowerment model of disability (115).This does not mean to imply that all people with disabilities have a poor opinion of themselves (116). Because of the ways in which people with disabilities have been treated over the years, it can be expected that many individuals with disabilities have learned to be dependent on the ever-changing attitudes of those who are not disabled (117).

While this model offers a lot of agency to people with disabilities to change and direct their lives in their way, it fails to acknowledge the extent to which an individual also faces systematic oppression and discrimination (118). Individual effort can only be effective till a certain limit, after which it has to be addressed at a societal level (119).

So, which model of disability is the most ideal?

The answer to this question is not direct, because as mentioned above, each model has its own unique strengths and limitations, and each of the models may be suitable depending on the context (120). It also may vary from one individual to another. For instance, a person may be following the medical model and investing money to improve their life (121,122). Contrarily, another individual may not want to focus on the impairment, and would rather advocate for changes in social structures and policies. Would that mean that one is better than the other? Not really (123). It is important to understand that these models simply provide an opportunity for us to understand disability in different ways (124). Finally, what matters is how the individual who has that lived experience chooses to construct it (125). It is also important for their non-disabled counterparts to be open and respectful to their perspectives to create a more inclusive society (126).

True inclusivity is when we respect and appreciate people irrespective of their disabilities.

Photo Credits

1. Photo by CDC on Unsplash

2. Photo by Sonika Agarwal on Unsplash

3. Photo by Ilya Ignatiev on Unsplash

4. Photo by Natanael Melchor on Unsplash

5. Photo by Natanael Melchor on Unsplash

6. Photo by Amy Elting on Unsplash

7. Photo by Zhuo Cheng you on Unsplash

8. Photo by Audi Nissen on Unsplash

9. Photo by Nathan Anderson on Unsplash


  1. Bennett JM, Volpe MA. Models of disability from religious tradition: Introductory editorial. J Disabil Relig [Internet]. 2018;22(2):121–9. Available from:

  2. Lawson A, Beckett AE. The social and human rights models of disability: towards a complementarity thesis. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2021;25(2):348–79. Available from:

  3. Chandrashekhar, H., Prashanth, N. R., Kumar, C. N., & Kasthuri, P. (2010). Disabilities research in India. Indian journal of psychiatry, 281-285.

  4. WHO. (2011). World Report on Disability. Geneva: World Health Organization.

  5. Friedman, C., & Owen, A. L. (2017). Defining Disability: Understandings of and Attitudes Towards Ableism and Disability. Disability Studies Quarterly, 60-72.

  6. Priestley M, Huete-García A. Developing disability equality indicators: national and transnational technologies of governance. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2022;26(5):929–47. Available from:

  7. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Nervous System Disorders. Developmental disabilities. Washington, D.C., DC: National Academies Press; 2001.

  8. Atkinson M. Invisible Disabilities. In: Research in the Sociology of Sport. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2018. p. 127–42.

  9. Connell, W. (2013, May 15). The Visible Invisible Disability. Retrieved from Invisible Disabilities Association:

  10. DAND. Invisible disabilities - misunderstood and overlooked - [Internet]. 2021 Available from:

  11. Kumar L. Understanding invisible disabilities: Meaning and examples [Internet]. WeCapable. 2021 [cited 2023 Apr 4]. Available from:

  12. Ashraf C. Exploring the impacts of artificial intelligence on freedom of religion or belief online. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2022;26(5):757–91. Available from:

  13. [cited 2023 Apr 4]. Available from:,stepping%20on%20a%20land%20mine).

  14. Retief, M., & Letsosa, R. (2018). Models of Disability: A Brief Overview. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological studies. 74(1), 1-8.

  15. Kumar L. Mention of disability in the Bible: Verses, quotes, passages [Internet]. WeCapable. 2021 . Available from:

  16. Anand K. Only in India are kids with birth defects worshipped as gods [Internet]. India Times. 2015. Available from:

  17. Evolution of disability models [Internet]. Shades Of Noir. 2020 [cited 2023 Apr 4]. Available from:

  18. Niemann, S. (2005) ‘Persons with disabilities, in M. Burke, J. Chauvin & J. Miranti, Religious and spiritual issues in counselling: Applications across diverse populations, pp. 105–134, Brunner-Routledge, New York.

  19. Shakespeare T. Social models of disability and other life strategies. Scand J Disabil Res [Internet]. 2004;6(1):8–21. Available from:

  20. Wright E. The Power of Pity: the offensiveness of using disability to gain sympathy [Internet]. Conscious Being. 2020 [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from:

  21. Hadley B. Cheats, charity cases and inspirations: disrupting the circulation of disability-based memes online. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2016;31(5):676–92. Available from:

  22. Ralph N. Understanding disability: Part 4 – the charity model [Internet]. Available from:

  23. Duyan, V. (2007) The community effects of disabled sports, in Centre of Excellence, Defence Against Terrorism, Amputee sports for victims of terrorism, pp. 70–77, IOS Press, Amsterdam.

  24. Barnes MP, Radermacher H. Models of disability. In: Community Rehabilitation in Neurology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. p. 49–58.

  25. Miles M. Social Responses to Disability & Poverty in Economically Weaker Countries. Research, Trends, Critique, and Lessons Usually Not Learnt. Annotated bibliography of modern and historical material [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from:

  26. Models of disability: Key to perspective [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from:

  27. Nietzsche F. [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from:

  28. Fritscher L. Medical model use in psychology [Internet]. Verywell Mind. 2008. Available from:

  29. [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from:

  30. Medical model [Internet]. Equality and Diversity. 2015 [cited 2023 Apr 6]. Available from:

  31. Ghai, A. (2015). Rethinking Disability in India. New Delhi: Routledge India

  32. Beck B. Embodied practice: Reflections of a physically disabled art therapist in social and medical disability spaces. Art Ther (Alex) [Internet]. 2020;37(2):62–9. Available from:

  33. Jaramillo Ruiz F. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its take on sexuality. Reprod Health Matters [Internet]. 2017;25(50):92–103. Available from:

  34. Moroz A, Gonzalez-Ramos G, Festinger T, Langer K, Zefferino S, Kalet A. Immediate and follow-up effects of a brief disability curriculum on disability knowledge and attitudes of PM&R residents: a comparison group trial. Med Teach [Internet]. 2010;32(8):e360-4. Available from:

  35. Vehmas S, Watson N. Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: a critique of critical disability studies. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2014;29(4):638–50. Available from:

  36. Johnstone, D. (2012). An introduction to disability studies. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken.

  37. Thomas, D., & Woods, H. (2003). Working with people with learning disabilities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.

  38. deBono MC. Trailing my journey into disability insights. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2016;31(5):713–6. Available from:

  39. Oliver, M. (2004). The Social Model in Action: if I had a hammer. In C. Barnes, & G. Mercer, Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research (pp. 18-31). Leeds: The Disability Press.

  40. Topping M, Douglas JM, Winkler D. Factors that influence the quality of paid support for adults with acquired neurological disability: scoping review and thematic synthesis. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2022;44(11):2482–99. Available from:

  41. Nett C. Negotiating agency: disability activism in Uganda between local contexts and global influences. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2023;38(1):169–93. Available from:

  42. Watermeyer B, Swartz L. Disability and the problem of lazy intersectionality. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2022;1–5. Available from:

  43. Finkelstein, V. (2007, March 20). The ‘Social Model of Disability and the Disability Movement. Retrieved from Centre for Disability Studies:

  44. Woods R. Exploring how the social model of disability can be re-invigorated for autism: in response to Jonathan Levitt. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2017;32(7):1090–5. Available from:

  45. Riddle CA. Why we do not need a ‘stronger’ social model of disability. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2020;35(9):1509–13. Available from:

  46. Ripamonti L, De Campos T, McCosker P. Guest editorial. J Disabil Relig [Internet]. 2018;22(3):1–3. Available from:

  47. Vehmas S, Watson N. Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: a critique of critical disability studies. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2014;29(4):638–50. Available from:

  48. Vehmas S, Watson N. Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: a critique of critical disability studies. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2014;29(4):638–50. Available from:

  49. Harris, A., & Enfield, S. (2003). Disability, Equality and Human Rights: A training manual for development and humanitarian organisations. Oxford: Oxfam.

  50. Vedeler JS. How is disability addressed in a job interview? Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2023;1–20. Available from:

  51. Bigby C, Bould E, Beadle-Brown J. Conundrums of supported living: The experiences of people with intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil [Internet]. 2017;42(4):309–19. Available from:

  52. Millar B. Hearing impairment and hearing disability: towards a paradigm change in hearing services: Hearing impairment and hearing disability: towards a paradigm change in hearing services, edited by Anthony Hogan and Rebecca Phillips, Farnham, Ashgate, 2015, 168 pp., £60.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-1-47-245320-4. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2016;31(9):1309–11. Available from:

  53. Degener, T. (2017) ‘A new human rights model of disability, in V. Della Fina, R. Cera & G. Palmisano. The United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: A commentary (pp. 41–60). Springer, Cham, Switzerland.

  54. Bigby C, Whiteside M, Douglas J. Providing support for decision making to adults with intellectual disability: Perspectives of family members and workers in disability support services. J Intellect Dev Disabil [Internet]. 2019;44(4):396–409. Available from:

  55. Geiger BB, Garthwaite K, Warren J, Bambra C. Assessing work disability for social security benefits: international models for the direct assessment of work capacity. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2018;40(24):2962–70. Available from:

  56. Topping M, Douglas J, Winkler D. “They treat you like a person, they ask you what you want”: a grounded theory study of quality paid disability support for adults with acquired neurological disability. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2022;1–11. Available from:

  57. Rothler R. Disability rights, reproductive technology, and parenthood: unrealised opportunities. Reprod Health Matters [Internet]. 2017;25(50):104–13. Available from:

  58. Duckworth NJ, Wilson NJ. Medication oversight, governance, and administration in intellectual disability services: legislative limbo. Res Pract Intellect Dev Disabil [Internet]. 2022;9(1):73–83. Available from:

  59. Groce N, Challenger E, Berman-Bieler R, Farkas A, Yilmaz N, Schultink W, et al. Malnutrition and disability: unexplored opportunities for collaboration. Paediatr Int Child Health [Internet]. 2014;34(4):308–14. Available from:

  60. Watermeyer B, Swartz L. Disability and the problem of lazy intersectionality. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2022;1–5. Available from:

  61. Mkabile S, Swartz L. Spiritual healers’ explanatory models of intellectual disability in cape town, South Africa. J Disabil Relig [Internet]. 2022;26(1):70–86. Available from:

  62. Brock B. What is research on disability? Looking backward to see forward. J Disabil Relig [Internet]. 2022;26(4):390–413. Available from:

  63. Macaskill G. The bible, autism and other profound developmental conditions: Regulating hermeneutics. J Disabil Relig [Internet]. 2022;26(4):414–38. Available from:

  64. Topping M, Douglas J, Winkler D. “Let the people you’re supporting be how you learn”: a grounded theory study on quality support from the perspective of disability support workers. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2022;1–13. Available from:

  65. Vehmas S, Watson N. Exploring normativity in disability studies. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2016;31(1):1–16. Available from:

  66. Fish R. Intellectual disability and being human: a care ethics model: Intellectual disability and being human: a care ethics model, by Chrissie Rogers, London, Routledge (Advances In Disability Studies), 2016, 174 pp., £95.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-0-41-566458-5. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2017;32(7):1109–11. Available from:

  67. Oliver M. The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2013;28(7):1024–6. Available from:

  68. Hughes B, Paterson K. The Social Model of Disability and the Disappearing Body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 1997;12(3):325–40. Available from:

  69. Marks D. Models of disability. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 1997;19(3):85–91. Available from:

  70. Haegele JA, Hodge S. Disability discourse: Overview and critiques of the medical and social models. Quest [Internet]. 2016;68(2):193–206. Available from:

  71. Llewellyn A, Hogan K. The use and abuse of models of disability. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2000;15(1):157–65. Available from:

  72. Brisenden S. Independent living and the medical model of disability. Disabil Handicap Soc [Internet]. 1986;1(2):173–8. Available from:

  73. Michael Mawson. (2023) Attending to Aging and Decline: Insights from Disability Theology. Journal of Disability & Religion 27:2, pages 323-341.

  74. Kiss B. Disability research today: international perspectives: Disability research today: international perspectives, edited by Tom Shakespeare, London, Routledge, 2015, 270 pp., £29.99 (paperback), ISBN 978-0-41-574844-5, £90.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-0-41-574843-8. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2017;32(1):132–3. Available from:

  75. Collis A. Changing social attitudes toward disability: perspectives from historical, cultural, and educational studies: Changing social attitudes toward disability: perspectives from historical, cultural, and educational studies, edited by David Bolt, London, Routledge Advances in Disability Studies, 2014, (hardback), ISBN: 978-0-41-573249-9. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2016;31(5):718–20. Available from:

  76. Iacovou M. A contribution towards a possible re-invigoration of our understanding of the social model of disability’s potential. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2021;36(7):1169–85. Available from:

  77. Moran, T. E., Mernin, L., & Gibbs, D. C. (2017). The Empowerment Model: Turning Barriers into Possibilities. Palestra, 19-26.

  78. Riddle CA. Why we do not need a ‘stronger’ social model of disability. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2020;35(9):1509–13. Available from:

  79. Levitt JM. Exploring how the social model of disability can be re-invigorated: in response to Mike Oliver. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2017;32(4):589–94. Available from:

  80. Brisenden S. Independent living and the medical model of disability. Disabil Handicap Soc [Internet]. 1986;1(2):173–8. Available from:

  81. Dewsbury ∗ G, Clarke K, Randall D, Rouncefield M, Sommerville I. The anti‐social model of disability. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2004;19(2):145–58. Available from:

  82. Topping M, Douglas JM, Winkler D. Factors that influence the quality of paid support for adults with acquired neurological disability: scoping review and thematic synthesis. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2022;44(11):2482–99. Available from:

  83. Oliver S, Gosden-Kaye EZ, Winkler D, Douglas JM. The outcomes of individualized housing for people with disability and complex needs: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil [Internet]. 2022;44(7):1141–55. Available from:

  84. Grey I, Lydon H, Healy O. Positive behaviour support: What model of disability does it represent? J Intellect Dev Disabil [Internet]. 2016;41(3):255–66. Available from:

  85. Antonopoulou M, Mantzorou M, Serdari A, Bonotis K, Vasios G, Pavlidou E, et al. Evaluating Mediterranean diet adherence in university student populations: Does this dietary pattern affect students’ academic performance and mental health? Int J Health Plann Manage [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Jun 5];35(1):5–21. Available from:

  86. Quintavalla A, Heine K. Priorities and human rights. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2019;23(4):679–97. Available from:

  87. Quintavalla A, Heine K. Priorities and human rights. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2019;23(4):679–97. Available from:

  88. Chaney P. Civil society, rights and welfare: Exploring the implementation of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in the commonwealth of independent states. Eur Asia Stud [Internet]. 2022;74(5):734–59. Available from:

  89. Chaney P. Civil society, rights and welfare: Exploring the implementation of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in the commonwealth of independent states. Eur Asia Stud [Internet]. 2022;74(5):734–59. Available from:

  90. Saracci R. The World Health Organisation needs to reconsider its definition of health. BMJ [Internet]. 1997 [cited 2023 Jun 5];314(7091):1409–10. Available from:

  91. Bhugra D. Social discrimination and social justice. Int Rev Psychiatry [Internet]. 2016;28(4):336–41. Available from:

  92. Wayne R, Staves M. Model scientists. Commun Integr Biol [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2023 Jun 5];1(1):97–103. Available from:

  93. Lawson A, Beckett AE. The social and human rights models of disability: towards a complementarity thesis. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2021;25(2):348–79. Available from:

  94. Lawson A, Beckett AE. The social and human rights models of disability: towards a complementarity thesis. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2021;25(2):348–79. Available from:

  95. Richter D, Dixon J. Models of mental health problems: a quasi-systematic review of theoretical approaches. J Ment Health [Internet]. 2023;32(2):396–406. Available from:

  96. Mladenov T. Disability and social justice. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2016;31(9):1226–41. Available from:

  97. Waltz M, Schippers A. Politically disabled: barriers and facilitating factors affecting people with disabilities in political life within the European Union. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2021;36(4):517–40. Available from:

  98. de Oliveira RB, Rubio FA, Anderle R, Sanchez M, de Souza LE, Macinko J, et al. Incorporating social determinants of health into the mathematical modeling of HIV/AIDS. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 5];12(1):20541. Available from:

  99. Muldoon OT, Haslam SA, Haslam C, Cruwys T, Kearns M, Jetten J. The social psychology of responses to trauma: social identity pathways associated with divergent traumatic responses. Eur Rev Soc Psychol [Internet]. 2019;30(1):311–48. Available from:

  100. . Bhugra D. Social discrimination and social justice. Int Rev Psychiatry [Internet]. 2016;28(4):336–41. Available from:

  101. Wickenden M. Widening the SLP lens: how can we improve the wellbeing of people with communication disabilities globally. Int J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2013;15(1):14–20. Available from:

102 Reynolds TE. Theology and disability: Changing the conversation. J Relig Disabil Health [Internet]. 2012;16(1):33–48. Available from:

103. Malek J, Daar J. The case for a parental duty to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis for medical benefit. Am J Bioeth [Internet]. 2012;12(4):3–11. Available from:

104. Malek J, Daar J. The case for a parental duty to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis for medical benefit. Am J Bioeth [Internet]. 2012;12(4):3–11. Available from:

105. Lam D. Cognitive behaviour therapy territory model: effective disputing approach. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 1997 [cited 2023 Jun 5];25(6):1205–9. Available from:

106. McDaid S, Delaney S. A social approach to decision-making capacity: exploratory research with people with experience of mental health treatment. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2011;26(6):729–42. Available from:

107. Fitzpatrick MC, Bauch CT, Townsend JP, Galvani AP. Modelling microbial infection to address global health challenges. Nat Microbiol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 Jun 5];4(10):1612–9. Available from:

108. Nah K, Nishiura H, Tsuchiya N, Sun X, Asai Y, Imamura A. Test-and-treat approach to HIV/AIDS: a primer for mathematical modeling. Theor Biol Med Model [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 Jun 5];14(1). Available from:

109. Dupré M. Disability culture and cultural competency in social work. Soc Work Educ [Internet]. 2012;31(2):168–83. Available from:

110. Roditi D, Robinson ME. The role of psychological interventions in the management of patients with chronic pain. Psychol Res Behav Manag [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2023 Jun 5];4:41–9. Available from:

111.Wimmer J, Quandt T. Living in the risk society: An interview with Ulrich beck. Journal Stud [Internet]. 2006;7(2):336–47. Available from:

112. Hausenblas HA, Downs DS. How much is too much? The development and validation of the exercise dependence scale. Psychol Health [Internet]. 2002;17(4):387–404. Available from:

113. Kern ML, Williams P, Spong C, Colla R, Sharma K, Downie A, et al. Systems informed positive psychology. J Posit Psychol [Internet]. 2020;15(6):705–15. Available from:

114. Collins BC, Ault MJ. Including persons with disabilities in the religious community: Program models implemented by two churches. J Relig Disabil Health [Internet]. 2010;14(2):113–31. Available from: 115. Cox EO. Empowerment-Oriented Practice Applied to Long-Term Care. Journal of Social Work in Long-Term Care. 2001 Jun;1(2):27–46. 116. Mileva VR, Vázquez GH, Milev R. Effects, experiences, and impact of stigma on patients with bipolar disorder. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2023 Jun 5];9:31–40. Available from:

117. Vornholt K, Villotti P, Muschalla B, Bauer J, Colella A, Zijlstra F, et al. Disability and employment – overview and highlights. Eur J Work Org Psychol [Internet]. 2018;27(1):40–55. Available from:

118. Timander A-C, Möller A. Distress or disability? Could a theoretical framework drawn from disability studies be a way forward when trying to understand experiences of oppression on the grounds of mental distress? Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2016;31(9):1275–87. Available from:

119. Mensah J. Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Soc Sci [Internet]. 2019;5(1):1653531. Available from:

120. Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach [Internet]. 2013;35(11):e1561-72. Available from:

121. Quintavalla A, Heine K. Priorities and human rights. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2019;23(4):679–97. Available from:

122. Quintavalla A, Heine K. Priorities and human rights. Int J Hum Rights [Internet]. 2019;23(4):679–97. Available from:

123. Fullana J, Pallisera M, Díaz-Garolera G. How do people with learning disabilities talk about professionals and organizations? Discourse on support practices for independent living. Disabil Soc [Internet]. 2019;34(9–10):1462–80. Available from:

124. Foley JT, Tindall D, Lieberman L, Kim S-Y. How to develop disability awareness using the sport education model. J Phys Educ Recreation Dance [Internet]. 2007;78(9):32–6. Available from:

125. Jordal K, Heggen K. When life experience matters: A narrative exploration of students’ learning in nursing education. Nord Psychol [Internet]. 2015;67(2):104–16. Available from:

126. Qi F, Wang Q. Guaranteeing the health rights of people with disabilities in the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives from China. Risk Manag Healthc Policy [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Jun 5];13:2357–63. Available from:*c9ury2*_ga*ODgwNTAwMjgwLjE2ODU5NDkyNDg.*_ga_0HYE8YG0M6*MTY4NTk1NjAzOC4yLjEuMTY4NTk1OTc1Ny4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2.206887761.395441562.1685949248-880500280.1685949248


Although the articles published on our website are not scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles, we aim to provide readers with authentic information on mental health and the daily problems of the 21st century. All content caters to the South Asian population living in India and other countries. We refer to other population groups and ethnicities but do not discriminate against any individual or group.

Some of our write-ups are creative pieces and have all narrative styles. Some articles are not monologues but academic-style essays that cite scholarly articles. Moreover, our content is for all age groups. If we have pieces that require parental advisory, we will put up a cautionary statement.

The above information has been written by a qualified mental health professional or journalist. It has been reviewed by a panel of experienced, qualified, skilled and trained news editors, journalists and mental health professionals. All precautionary measures have been taken to ensure that these articles are not just casual write-ups from youngsters. This is an informal method of sharing important information on the web, so one must seek the positive side of the articles shared on our website.

We also understand that not everyone will be happy to read our information or have qualms about the use of our language. However, we can assure you that our intentions are not to hurt anyone. Moreover, if you have any valuable feedback that you would like to share as a member of the audience or an avid reader of our blog posts, please write back to us at

All articles are purely for information and educational purposes only. Please remember that everything we share promotes positivity, but not everything shared on our website may work in your favour. All tips and tricks to tackle your issues may have negative outcomes, so please be mindful when you try something on your own without proper guidance or professional supervision. If you happen to be facing a mental health issue or disorder, we request you to seek professional help from the nearest mental health service provider available in your city.

We, the authors or publishers, do not claim responsibility for any harm caused to viewers and readers due to our choice of words or published posts. Furthermore, we will vehemently disregard any abusive language or comments shared by some readers for any given reason and take necessary steps to curb such uncivil behaviours.


All contents of the website, blog posts, main texts, captions, and ideas are the intellectual property of ACRO Mental Health & Wellness and individual writers. We have taken special care in trying to reference all our work to avoid plagiarism or online trolls. We have used references of audio-visual content that does not infringe on anyone’s IP nor belong to us in some cases, but have given due credit to every individual and site that we referred to before writing our articles. Any unauthorised copying, publishing, or circulation of this content is illegal and will be subject to legal consequences as per the jurisdiction of the Indian Copyright Act.

12 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Bình luận

Bình luận đã bị tắt.
bottom of page