Social rights, public policies, and social indicators related to persons with disabilities in Brazil: a scoping review

Derechos sociales, políticas públicas e indicadores sociales relacionados con personas con discapacidad en Brasil: revisión de alcance

Abstract

Objective: To map the scientific evidence on social rights, public policies, and social indicators aimed at persons with disabilities in Brazil, identifying knowledge gaps, methodological trends, and opportunities to improve inclusive public policies.

Methods: Studies published from 2007 to April 2025 were included, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status, encompassing scientific articles, dissertations, theses, primary and secondary studies, theoretical and documentary analyses, case studies, policy evaluations, reports, and statistical yearbooks. Study selection and data extraction were performed by four independent reviewers using the Rayyan platform and, subsequently, Excel spreadsheets. Studies addressing rights, public policies, and indicators related to persons with disabilities, across different territorial scales, were included. Data were presented narratively.

Results: Of the 1,392 studies identified, 124 were included. Although the social model of disability was cited, the approach centered on the “characteristics of disability” predominated, with limited incorporation of social markers such as race, gender, and territory. Only 21 studies (17%) evaluated public policies, and 26 (21%) addressed indicators, revealing a scarcity of systematized data to assess policies across different contexts.

Conclusion: The biological approach to disability predominated. Policy evaluation studies identified relevant gaps and barriers in the fulfillment of human rights. Weaknesses were evidenced in data production and in the formulation of indicators across all public policy areas. The findings reinforced the need for more robust, intersectional monitoring models to advance rights and improve inclusive policies.

Keywords:
Persons with Disabilities; Public Policy; Social Indicators; Scoping Review; Social Inclusion.

Resumo

Objetivo: Mapear as evidências científicas sobre direitos sociais, políticas públicas e indicadores sociais voltados às pessoas com deficiência no Brasil, identificando lacunas de conhecimento, tendências metodológicas e oportunidades para aprimorar as políticas públicas inclusivas.

Métodos: Foram incluídos estudos publicados a partir de 2007 até abril de 2025, sem restrição de idioma ou status de publicação, abrangendo artigos científicos, dissertações, teses, estudos primários e secundários, análises teóricas e documentais, estudos de caso, avaliações de políticas, relatórios e anuários estatísticos. A seleção e a extração dos dados foram realizadas por quatro revisores independentes, utilizando a plataforma Rayyan e, posteriormente, planilhas Excel. Foram incluídos estudos sobre direitos, políticas públicas e indicadores relacionados a pessoas com deficiência, em diferentes escalas territoriais. Os dados foram apresentados de forma narrativa.

Resultados: Dos 1.392 estudos identificados, 124 foram incluídos. Embora o modelo social da deficiência seja citado, predominou a abordagem centrada na “natureza da deficiência”, com baixa incorporação de marcadores sociais como raça, gênero e território. Apenas 21 estudos (17%) avaliaram políticas públicas e 26 (21%) abordaram indicadores, revelando escassez de dados sistematizados para avaliar políticas em diferentes contextos.

Conclusão: Predominou a abordagem biológica da deficiência. Os estudos de avaliação de políticas apontaram lacunas e barreiras relevantes no cumprimento de direitos humanos. Evidenciaram-se fragilidades na produção de dados e na formulação de indicadores em todas as áreas de políticas públicas. Os achados reforçaram a necessidade de modelos de monitoramento mais robustos e interseccionais, o que contribui para efetivar direitos e aprimorar políticas inclusivas.

Palavras-chave:
Pessoa com Deficiência; Política Pública; Indicadores Sociais; Revisão de Escopo; Inclusão Social.

Resumen

Objetivo: Mapear la evidencia científica sobre los derechos sociales, las políticas públicas y los indicadores sociales dirigidos a las personas con discapacidad en Brasil, identificando brechas de conocimiento, tendencias metodológicas y oportunidades para mejorar las políticas públicas inclusivas.

Métodos: Se incluyeron estudios publicados desde 2007 hasta abril de 2025, sin restricción de idioma ni de estado de publicación, que abarcaban artículos científicos, disertaciones, tesis, estudios primarios y secundarios, análisis teóricos y documentales, estudios de caso, evaluaciones de políticas, informes y anuarios estadísticos. La selección y la extracción de datos fueron realizadas por cuatro revisores independientes, utilizando la plataforma Rayyan y, posteriormente, hojas de cálculo de Excel. Se incluyeron estudios sobre derechos, políticas públicas e indicadores relacionados con las personas con discapacidad, en diferentes escalas territoriales. Los datos se presentaron de forma narrativa.

Resultados: De los 1.392 estudios identificados, 124 fueron incluidos. Aunque se menciona el modelo social de la discapacidad, predominó el enfoque centrado en la “naturaleza de la discapacidad”, con escasa incorporación de marcadores sociales como la raza, el género y el territorio. Solo 21 estudios (17%) evaluaron políticas públicas y 26 (21%) abordaron indicadores, lo que evidencia una escasez de datos sistematizados para evaluar políticas en distintos contextos.

Conclusión: Predominó el enfoque biológico de la discapacidad. Los estudios de evaluación de políticas identificaron brechas y barreras relevantes en el ejercicio de los derechos humanos. Se evidenciaron debilidades en la generación de datos y en la formulación de indicadores en todas las áreas de políticas públicas. Los hallazgos refuerzan la necesidad de modelos de monitoreo más robustos e interseccionales, contribuyendo a la efectivización de los derechos y al fortalecimiento de políticas inclusivas.

Palabras clave:
Personas con Discapacidad; Política Pública; Indicadores Sociales; Revisión de Alcance; Inclusión Social.

Introduction

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), approved by the United Nations in 2006 and enacted in Brazil as a constitutional amendment [¹], is a historical milestone in the global recognition of the human rights of persons with disabilities [²,³]. It marks the paradigmatic transition from the traditional medical model, which characterizes disability exclusively in terms of the individual’s body, to the biopsychosocial approach, which centers on the physical, social, and behavioral barriers that hinder full participation in society with equal rights. This approach also recognizes specificities such as race/color, gender, class, among others, engaging with the theoretical intersectional perspective, which has increasingly been incorporated into disability studies [⁴-⁷].

The adoption of the biopsychosocial model has had a profound impact on the design of public policies, as it shifts the focus from curing or restoring the individual’s body toward mitigating environmental barriers. This new paradigm requires that the ways disability is measured and the criteria established for access to public policies take into account the barriers individuals face, rather than being restricted to impairments in body structures and functions.

The Continuous Cash Benefit (Benefício de Prestação Cotinuada, BPC) of Social Assistance, which is part of the Basic Social Protection (Proteção Social Básica, PSB) of the Unified Social Assistance System (Sistema Único da Assistência Social, SUAS), was the first policy to incorporate, in 2009, the biopsychosocial model to assess eligibility, representing an unprecedented advance in the history of social protection and public policy for persons with disabilities in Brazil [⁸]. Although the country has been a signatory to the CRPD since 2007, disputes over the conceptions guiding access to public policies persist today. The delay in implementing the Unified Biopsychosocial Disability Assessment, which has been under development for several years, is one reflection of this dispute.

The change represented by the biopsychosocial model in the conception of disability and its implications for public policies is substantial. Nevertheless, discrimination, invisibility, and inequality persist [⁸,⁹]. Examples include the differences in poverty and social exclusion affecting persons with some disability identified in 2022. Among individuals older than 25 years, 63% had no formal education or had not completed primary education, compared with 32% among persons without disabilities [¹⁰].

The more severe the disabilities, the more pronounced the exclusion. The mean real income from the main job among persons older than 14 years with complete or severe disabilities was 45% lower than that of persons without disabilities, a difference that reached 199% when comparing Black women with disabilities to White men without disabilities [¹¹].

The implementation and monitoring of policies aimed at overcoming barriers gain particular relevance in ensuring rights. However, an important practical and scientific gap is the lack of consolidated data and well-defined indicators to support monitoring of public policies for this population group [⁷,¹²], which constitutes what may be termed informational invisibility. Data on persons with disabilities have been poorly systematized and, until recently, scattered across several databases, which hindered their use for public policy planning and social oversight.

The National Information System on Disabilities (Sistema Nacional de Indicadores sobre Deficiência, Sisdef) emerged as a strategic response [¹³], in line with the country’s commitments under the CRPD [¹] and, in the global context, with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [¹⁴].

Sisdef is a platform designed to collect, organize, and provide data on public policies for persons with disabilities. Organized into thematic panels on health, education, work, social assistance, demography, and human rights, it includes indicators derived from various public and non-public data sources. Although there are limitations, including partial coverage, outdated data, and gaps in specific areas such as housing, urban mobility, and digital accessibility, its establishment represents a significant advance in addressing the invisibility of persons with disabilities, especially within the framework of the biopsychosocial model.

To support the monitoring of public policies, Sisdef adopted a hierarchical organizational model whose logical framework structures indicators into four major components: situational factors, inputs, processes, and outcomes [¹⁵]. The scoping review presented in this article aimed to support improvements to this model.

The objective of this review was to map the scientific evidence on social rights, public policies, and social indicators aimed at persons with disabilities in Brazil, identifying knowledge gaps, methodological trends, and opportunities to improve inclusive public policies.

Methods

Study design

It is a scoping review, guided by the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute [¹⁶] and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [¹⁷].

Research question

This review seeks to answer the question: “What is the scientific production, including grey literature, on rights and public policies related to persons with disabilities after the publication of the CRPD in 2007?”.

This question was constructed based on the PCC acronym, which guides scoping reviews, according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology [¹⁶].

• Population (P): persons with disabilities.

• Concept (C): scientific production on public policies and rights.

• Context (C): Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enacted in December 2006 and published in 2007.

The secondary questions were: What are the theoretical and conceptual approaches/models of disability? Which public policies are addressed in the literature? How are public policies involving persons with disabilities being evaluated? Which indicators have been adopted to assess public policies related to persons with disabilities?

A person with a disability was considered someone who has a long-term impairment of physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory type, which, in interaction with one or more barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others [¹].

Eligibility criteria

To ensure broad coverage of scientific and technical production on the topic and to respect the linguistic diversity of countries that are signatories to the CRPD, studies published between 2007 and April 2025 in Portuguese, English, Spanish, and French were included. Scientific articles, master’s theses, doctoral dissertations, primary and secondary studies with any methodological approach, theoretical studies, document analyses, case studies, policy evaluations, research reports, and statistical yearbooks were considered. Undergraduate/specialization academic works, editorials, interviews, books, campaign materials, participatory policy documents, preprint articles, and clinical studies or those using the term “disability” in a decontextualized manner were excluded.

Sources of information

Searches were conducted in the following databases: Medline (via PubMed), Virtual Health Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Oasisbr (for grey literature). No manual search of references of relevant publications was performed to identify additional potentially eligible studies. No restrictions were applied regarding publication status.

The strategy was developed with the support of a librarian from the National School of Public Health Sérgio Arouca (Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca, ENSP) in April 2025. No contact was made with the authors to obtain additional data.

Search strategies

Controlled descriptors-MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and DeCS (Health Sciences Descriptors)-were used, combined with free terms and articulated using Boolean operators (AND, OR), and adapted to the specificities of each database. The strategy was designed to ensure comprehensiveness and precision in retrieving relevant studies. The full version of the strategy is available in Supplementary Table 1.

The following limits were applied: language (Portuguese, English, Spanish, and French) and publication period from 2007 to April 2025.

Selection of evidence sources

This selection was conducted in two stages: (i) title and abstract screening; and (ii) full-text review. Both stages were conducted by pairs of independent reviewers (DMFA and SOP, MFFVSB and MG), using the Rayyan platform. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer (CMRD). Calibration of criteria was performed using the first 100 studies during screening and 10 studies during eligibility assessment.

Data extraction process

Four researchers (DMFA and SOP, MFFVSB, and MG) independently extracted data from the studies using a standardized, pretested Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was reviewed by a fifth researcher who did not participate in the initial extraction (CMRD). When necessary, this researcher supplemented or adjusted information on the extraction sheet to ensure data standardization. Missing information was recorded as “not reported” or “not applicable.”

Data items

The following data were extracted.

• General characteristics: authors, title, year, country, CRPD signatory status, cross-country comparisons, objectives, study type, methodological approach, main results, limitations, and recommendations.

• Disability-related characteristics: study population, such as persons with disabilities, their family members, public managers, or other involved groups. Concepts and social markers present in the studies (such as race/ethnicity, gender, disability, health, class/income), as well as situational factors influencing the contexts analyzed.

• Policy characteristics: aspects related to the policies mentioned in the studies, such as level of coverage (from community to global), policy thematic area (health, education, labor, legal, among others), policy timing (whether before or after the CRPD), and policy indicators categorized according to the Sisdef matrix [15].

Critical appraisal of evidence sources

No methodological quality assessment of the studies was conducted, in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews [¹⁶].

Synthesis of results

Scientific production on rights and public policies for persons with disabilities was characterized by theoretical approaches, social markers, and the policies addressed.

To answer the remaining research questions, two subsets were analyzed.

• Policy evaluation studies were described by year, relationship to the CRPD, study type and method, target population, thematic area, and level of coverage.

• Studies addressing indicators related to policies, programs, and actions were systematized by theme and area and classified according to the Sisdef matrix (situational factors, inputs, processes, and outcomes), highlighting gaps in scientific production.

Findings were presented narratively, without meta-analysis, and discussed collectively by the authors.

Results

Of the 1,392 records identified, 864 were selected for title and abstract screening, 207 for full-text assessment, and 124 were included in the review (Figure 1). Among the 124 studies included in the review, 91 were published in peer-reviewed journals. The remaining studies constituted grey literature, comprising 28 master’s theses and 5 doctoral dissertations. Seventy-six studies were published in English, 44 in Portuguese, 3 in French, and 1 in Spanish. The highest number of publications was observed in 2023, 2024, and 2020, with 18, 17, and 13 studies, respectively (Table 1).

Figure 1
Study selection and inclusion process in the scoping review

Table 1
General characteristics of the studies included in the review (n=124)

Author, year (reference)	Country(ies) of the study	Study type/design	Indicators presented?
Mefano, 2014 [7]	Brazil	Policy evaluation	No
Evans et al., 2022 [12]	Australia	Policy evaluation	No
Abreu, 2019 [20]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Arantes, 2017 [21]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Arstein-Kerslake et al., 2023 [22]	British Commonwealth of Nations (Commonwealth)	Theoretical discussion	No
Assaf, 2017 [23]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Breau, 2024 [24]	England	Policy implementation	No
Brehmer-Rinderer, Zigrovic and Weber, 2013 [25]	Spain and Hungary	Policy implementation	No
Colver et al., 2010 [26]	Not identified	Policy implementation	No
Costa, Anache and Sebastián-Heredero, 2023 [27]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Costa Filho, 2016 [28]	Brazil	Policy implementation	No
Davidson et al., 2016 [29]	Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom; and Northern Ireland	Policy implementation	No
Deb, 2017 [30]	India	Theoretical discussion	No
Díaz et al., 2023 [31]	Spain	Policy implementation	No
Didi, Dowse and Smith, 2018 [32]	Australia	Theoretical discussion	No
Duarte et al., 2017 [33]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Espín-Tello and Colver, 2017 [34]	France, Ireland, Sweden, England, Northern Ireland, Denmark, Italy and Germany	Not identified	No
Fernandes, 2012 [35]	Brazil	Policy evaluation	No
Ferreira da Mata, 2018 [36]	Portugal	Other (exploratory case study)	No
Fiala, 2019 [37]	Portugal	Policy implementation	No
Fisher et al., 2015 [38]	Australia	Policy implementation	No
Gibson and Mykitiuk, 2012 [39]	Canada	Other (survey and discussion of experiences regarding access to health services)	No
Gill et al., 2020 [40]	Australia	Policy implementation	Yes
Gill et al., 2021 [41]	Australia	Other (case study)	No
Gjertsen, Hardonk and Ineland, 2021 [42]	Iceland, Norway and Sweden	Other (documentary analysis)	No
Gómez et al., 2020 [43]	Not identified	Other (systematic review)	No
Gomes, 2016 [44]	Brazil	Other (case study)	No
Gough and Morris, 2012 [45]	Canada	Other (legislative analysis and key informant access)	No
Grigaitė, 2017 [46]	Lithuania	Policy evaluation	No
Henriques, 2023 [47]	Portugal	Theoretical discussion	No
Hodgson, 2012 [48]	Australia	Theoretical discussion	No
Hoffman, Sritharan and Tejpar, 2016 [49]	Canada	Other (case study)	No
Jaffrès, 2021 [50]	Sweden	Other (case study)	No
Jonasdottir et al., 2021 [51]	Iceland	Theoretical discussion	No
Kelly, 2023 [52]	India	Not identified	No
Mahdanian et al., 2023 [53]	Not identified	Other (review)	No
McCusker et al., 2023 [54]	Czech Republic, England, Finland, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland and Slovenia	Other (scoping review preceded by a group discussion with representatives from seven countries)	No
Martins, 2018 [55]	Portugal	Theoretical discussion	No
Matsui, 2013 [56]	Japan	Policy implementation	No
Miranda, 2024 [57]	Portugal	Theoretical discussion	No
Assumpção Lima Momm, Milléo Baract e Godinho Delgado, 2024 [58]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Munoz-Baell et al., 2008 [59]	Spain	Not identified	Yes
Ngwena, 2013 [60]	South African	Theoretical discussion	No
Oliveira, 2016 [61]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Pagaime, 2022 [62]	Brazil	Policy implementation	No
Parmenter, 2024 [63]	Global	Theoretical discussion	No
Pérez-Curiel et al., 2023 [64]	Not identified	Other (systematic review)	No
Pinto, 2020 [65]	Morocco and Tunisia	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Saigal and Narayan, 2014 [66]	India	Not identified	No
Sak, 2020 [67]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Samper and Fernández, 2017 [68]	Spain	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Santana, 2016 [69]	Brazil	Other (case study)	Yes
Santiago, 2016 [70]	Portugal	Not identified	No
Santos, 2024 [71]	Cape Verde	Policy evaluation	No
Sequeira, 2015 [72]	Brazil	Other (case study)	No
Silva, 2016 [73]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Silva, 2023 [74]	Brazil	Other (comparative study of legal instruments and pedagogical instruments)	Yes
Silveira, 2017 [75]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Skempes et al., 2018 [76]	Switzerland	Other (group concept mapping)	Yes
Souza, 2020 [77]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Srisuppaphon et al., 2017 [78]	Thailand	Policy implementation	No
Symeonidou, 2015 [79]	Cyprus	Other (case study)
Tibyriçá, 2019 [80]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Tongsiri et al., 2017 [81]	Thailand	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Trani et al., 2022 [82]	Afghanistan	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Trigueiro, 2014 [83]	Brazil	Not identified	No
von Granitz et al., 2017 [84]	Sweden	Policy evaluation	Yes
Vulcano, 2018 [85]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Waltz et al., 2018 [86]	Netherlands	Theoretical discussion	No
Winkler et al., 2020 [87]	Czech Republic	Policy evaluation	No
Xavier, 2022 [88]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Yilmaz, 2020 [89]	Turkey	Policy evaluation	No
García-Piña, 2025 [90]	Mexico	Not identified	No
Gould et al., 2015 [91]	74 countries, grouped into continental regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America)	Policy implementation	Yes
Magnusson and Bickenbach, 2020 [92]	Sierra Leone	Other (cross-sectional study)	No
Silva, 2023 [93]	Portugal	Policy evaluation	Yes
Wahyudi, Fathan and Kasiyati, 2023 [94]	Indonesia	Policy implementation	No
Wolbring, 2024 [95]	Canada	Other (scoping review)	No
Benedetti and Horvath Júnior, 2024 [96]	Brazil	Policy implementation	Yes
Goodley and Runswick-Cole, 2011 [97]	England	Not identified	No
Njelesani et al., 2024 [98]	Malawi	Theoretical discussion	No
Shikako et al., 2023 [99]	Canada	Policy evaluation	No
Furgalska and Londras, 2024 [100]	England and Wales	Theoretical discussion	No
Lee et al., 2015 [101]	Philippines	Other (case study)	No
Rade et al., 2023 [102]	Ethiopia	Other (cross-sectional study)	No
Coe, 2012 [103]	Armenia, Ethiopia, India, Sierra Leone, and Senegal	Theoretical discussion	No
Eyraud, 2023 [104]	France	Policy evaluation	No
Colon-Cabrera et al., 2021 [105]	Australia	Theoretical discussion	No
Grangaard et al., 2024 [106]	Norway, Sweden, Denmark	Policy implementation	No
Barrera Juarez, 2020 [107]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Bickenbach, 2011 [108]	Not identified	Policy implementation	Yes
Ferri and Favalli, 2018 [109]	Countries of the European Union	Policy evaluation	No
Ferri and Giannoumis, 2014 [110]	Countries of the European Union	Policy evaluation	No
Garg, Skempes and Bickenbach, 2020 [111]	Sweden, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, and United Kingdom	Policy implementation	Yes
Lord, Stein and Fiala-Butora, 2014 [112]	Not identified	Theoretical discussion	No
Marinho, 2019 [113]	Brazil	Other (integrative review)	No
Maxwell, 2025 [114]	Ireland	Policy evaluation	No
McCarthy, 2019 [115]	Australia	Policy implementation	No
Mira-Aladrén et al., 2024 [116]	Not identified	Policy evaluation	No
Morgan, 2023 [117]	United Arab Emirates	Theoretical discussion	No
Queiroz, 2023 [118]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Ramos, 2015 [119]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Resende, 2016 [120]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Amorim, 2019 [121]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Andrade, 2019 [122]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Cabral, 2022 [123]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Chagas, 2020 [124]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Cisternas and Aguila, 2020 [125]	Chile	Policy implementation	No
Curitiba, 2020 [126]	Brazil	Theoretical discussion	No
Durham et al., 2016 [127]	Lao People's Democratic Republic	Theoretical discussion	Yes
Garrido-Cumbrera, Chacón-García and Schädler, 2016 [128]	Spain	Policy implementation	No
Morgan, 2021 [129]	United Arab Emirates	Other (case study)	No
Murphy et al., 2022 [130]	Ireland	Policy implementation	No
Revillard, 2018 [131]	France	Theoretical discussion	No
Elekanachi et al., 2023 [132]	Nigeria	Policy evaluation	No
Grigaitė et al., 2025 [133]	Lithuania	Policy evaluation	Yes
Van Hout et al., 2023 [134]	Malawi	Theoretical discussion	No
Shikako et al., 2023 [135]	Australia, Canada, Fiji, France, Guinea, Haiti, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Malawi, Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, and Zimbabwe	Policy evaluation	Yes
Stavert et al., 2024 [136]	Scotland	Theoretical discussion	No
Yang, 2024 [137]	Not identified	Theoretical discussion	No
Scherer et al., 2024 [138]	Zambia	Other (scoping review)	No
Schidel, 2023 [139]	Not identified	Theoretical discussion	No
Suleiman et al., 2024 [140]	Global	Policy evaluation	No
Morales, 2022 [141]	Colombia	Policy implementation	No

The included studies were analyzed in relation to theoretical-conceptual approaches, social markers, and public policies addressed. Among the 124 studies, two subsets were defined for specific analyses, in accordance with the research questions: 21 (17%) explicitly addressed public policy evaluation, and 26 (21%) addressed indicators related to policies, programs, and actions targeting persons with disabilities. Seven policy evaluation studies addressed indicators.

The theoretical-conceptual approaches or models of disability were not explicitly stated in the 124 studies assessed, although these studies included analyses of social markers. “Characteristics of disability” was the most frequently addressed marker (56.5%). It was noted that 2.4% mentioned race/color/ethnicity (Table 2).

Two public policies accounted for 50% of the total production: social inclusion and social protection, and inclusive education. The least addressed were those related to access to food and communication policy within the health sector for persons with disabilities (Table 2).

Of the 124 studies included, 21 (16.9%) explicitly reported being policy evaluation studies and were published after 2012, with some increase over the last three years (Table 1).

The majority of the 21 studies used qualitative methods [¹²,³⁵,⁴⁶,⁸⁷,⁸⁹,⁹³,⁹⁹,¹⁰⁴,¹⁰⁹,¹¹⁰,¹¹⁴,¹¹⁶,¹³²,¹³³,¹³⁵], 3 used mixed methods [⁷,⁷¹,¹⁴⁰], and 3 used quantitative methods [81,82,84]. Seven presented indicators [⁸¹,⁸²,⁸⁴,⁹³,⁹⁹,¹³³,¹³⁵].

Most studies used primary sources [³⁵,⁸¹,⁸², ⁸⁴,⁸⁷,⁸⁹,⁹³,⁹⁹,¹⁰⁴,¹⁰⁹,¹¹⁴,¹³³]. Seven were theoretical in type [⁷,¹²,³⁵,⁹⁹,¹⁰⁹,¹¹⁰,¹⁴⁰]; 6 included public policy managers, policymakers, and implementers/operators [⁴⁶,⁸¹,⁸²,⁸⁴,⁸⁷,⁸⁹]. One study included, in addition to managers, persons with disabilities [⁴⁶]. Eight studies, produced after 2023, included persons with disabilities [⁷¹,⁹³,¹⁰⁴,¹¹⁴,¹¹⁶,¹³²,¹³³,¹³⁵].

In terms of policy thematic areas, social protection/ inclusion [⁴⁶,⁷¹,⁸²,⁸⁴,¹⁰⁴,¹¹⁶,¹³²,¹³³] and health [⁷,¹²,⁸⁷,⁹⁹,¹¹⁴,¹³⁵] were most prominent. There was 1 institutional study conducted in Lithuania, in which two independent living homes were examined [⁴⁶]. The remaining studies had national or continental scope.

Table 2
Distribution of studies according to identified social markers and public policies addressed (n=124)

Social markers and policies addresseda	n (%)
Social markers
Characteristics of disabilityb	70 (56.5)
Age group/generationb	14 (11.3)
Sex/genderb	13 (10.5)
Class/income/social statusb	7 (5.6)
Health conditionsb	7 (5.6)
Nationality/territorialityb	7 (5.6)
Race/color/ethnicityb	3 (2.4)
Other conditions of vulnerabilityb	6 (5.0)
No marker addressedb	10 (8.1)
Markers not identifiedb
Policies addressed
Social inclusion and protection policyc	25 (20.1)
Inclusive education policyc	36 (29.0)
Health policyc	26 (21.0)
Work and employment inclusion policyc	24 (19.4)
Accessibility policyc	22 (17.7)
Implementation and monitoring of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesc	6 (4.8)
Food access policy	9 (7.3)
Health communication policyc	1 (0.8)
Other policiesc	1 (0.8)
Policies not identified	10 (8.0)

• ^aStudies may have been included in more than one category.
• ^bSocial markers used to characterize disability.
• ^cPolicy areas addressed.

All studies adopted human and social rights as an analytical framework. Eleven emphasized gaps in the policies studied [⁷,¹²,³⁵,⁴⁶,⁷¹,⁸⁴,⁸⁷,⁹⁹,¹¹⁶,¹³⁵,¹⁴⁰].

Four highlighted potentialities or improvements in the evaluated policy field [⁸²,¹⁰⁹,¹¹⁰,¹⁴⁰].

Of the 124 studies included, 26 (21%) addressed indicators related to policies, programs, and actions for persons with disabilities. The characterization of these studies, including the topic addressed, the information provided, the indicators presented, and the policy thematic area, may be requested from the authors.

Definitions, methods, and topics were heterogeneous. Often, a single study fell under more than one policy thematic area. Among the 26 studies with indicators, most addressed social protection/inclusion [³⁰,³¹,⁶⁵, ⁸²,⁸⁴,⁹¹,⁹³,⁹⁶,¹²¹,¹²⁷,¹³³]. Two studies [⁷⁶,¹⁰⁸]

proposed indicator lists, one based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and another focused on rehabilitation.

The 26 studies were mapped and organized by thematic areas into four major categories and items adapted from the logical framework of the Sisdef model [⁸] to identify gaps (Table 3).

No studies were identified in 8 of the Sisdef matrix subitems: 1 in situational factors (professional teams); 1 in inputs (intersectoral and/or interinstitutional partnerships); 4 in process (infrastructure expansion, accessibility improvements, acquisition of accessible vehicles, and expansion of teams); and 2 in outcomes (adequacy of collective and public-use spaces).

Table 3
Distribution of studies addressing indicators, according to thematic area and categories of the logical framework of the National Information System on Disabilities (Sisdef) (n=26)

Matrixa	Social protection and inclusionn (%)	Education	Health	Work	Legal	Housing	CRPD monitoringc
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Situational factors
1. Policy implementation	7 (27)	5 (19)	5 (19)	5 (19)	2 (8)	1 (4)	1 (4)
2. Accessibility conditions	3 (12)	1 (4)	0 (0)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
3. Professional teams	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
4. Institutional/legal definitions	1 (4)	4 (15)	2 (8)	2 (8)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
5. Social needs	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
6. Public data	1 (4)	2 (8)	1 (4)	3 (12)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Inputs
0. Not applicableb	3 (12)	2 (8)	1 (4)	3 (12)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
1. Infrastructure	2 (8)	1 (4)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (4)	0 (0)
2. Human resources	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (4)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)
3. Intersectoral and/or interinstitutional partnerships	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
4. Standards and/or protocols	6 (23)	4 (15)	5 (19)	4 (15)	1 (4)	0 (0)	1 (4)
5. Information system	2 (8)	1 (4)	1 (4)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Processes
0. Not applicableb	6 (23)	3 (12)	6 (23)	4 (15)	2 (8)	0 (0)	0 (0)
1. Infrastructure expansion	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
2. Accessibility improvements	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
3. Team for communicational and informational accessibility	0 (0)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
4. Intersectoral and interinstitutional partnerships for infrastructure works	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (4)	0 (0)
5. Acquisition of affordable vehicles	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
6. Expansion of teams	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
7. Continuing education	2 (8)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)
8. Addressing stigma/discrimination	4 (15)	2 (8)	1 (4)	4 (15)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Results
0. Not applicableb	1 (4)	0 (0)	3 (12)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
1. Territorial distribution	2 (8)	2 (8)	1 (4)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
2. Expansion of access and quality	2 (8)	2 (8)	2 (8)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
3. Adequacy of collective and public spaces	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
4. Expansion of services	1 (4)	1 (4)	1 (4)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
5. Strengthening of networks	1 (4)	2 (8)	2 (8)	2 (8)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
6. Reduction of complaints	1 (4)	1 (4)	1 (4)	1 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
7. Advances in the CRPDc and LBId	8 (31)	4 (15)	3 (12)	7 (27)	2 (8)	1 (4)	1 (4)

• ^aStudies may have been included in more than one category.
• ^bWhen indicators did not fit into any related category of the Sisdef framework.
• ^cConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• ^dBrazilian Inclusion Law.

Discussion

This review, which sought to map scientific production on rights and public policies for persons with disabilities after the CRPD, found that the defense of the rights of persons with disabilities and the adoption of the social model of disability as a theoretical perspective were present in the studies. However, the intersection of disability with other social markers was not frequent, which demonstrated a strong predominance of the “characteristics of disability” as the sole marker.

The evaluation of public policies for persons with disabilities was present in only a fraction of the studies, and the use of policy-related indicators was scarce. In analogy with the Sisdef matrix, gaps were identified across situational factors, inputs, processes, and outcomes. Qualitative studies predominated, and the most frequent thematic areas were inclusive education and social protection and inclusion.

A key limitation is the risk of missing grey literature and the language restriction.

Although the studies included in the review were aligned with the social model of disability, a biomedical approach was predominant, even though it is recognized that social markers such as race/color, gender, and class impact access to services and rights guaranteed by law. Policy analyses have not incorporated disability from an intersectional perspective, which considers the lived experience of the intersection of different social markers in everyday life and in population groups with trajectories of oppression [⁴-⁷].

Among studies reporting evaluation as an objective or study design (21 studies), there was considerable diversity in themes and methodological choices. Evaluation is a practice present across multiple domains, which may generate conceptual and methodological polysemy in policy evaluation, requiring explicit clarification of approaches [¹⁴²].

Among the 21 evaluation studies, non-population-based studies predominated. Among population-based studies, 8-the majority-included persons with disabilities, 6 involved managers, policymakers, and policy implementers, and 1 involved both groups of actors. Considering, according to the Public Policies Pentagon [¹⁴³], that public policies involve actions and interventions planned and carried out by the State or governments, as well as interactions among the actors involved in policies, it is relevant to note that persons with disabilities, as recipients of the policies studied, and actors-individual or collective-“endowed with resources (...), a certain degree of autonomy, strategies, and capacity to make choices” were the most frequently present in evaluations.

A predominance of studies focusing on national-level policy evaluation was observed. Considering the CRPD as the main framework of this review, which constitutes a commitment among State Parties, the results highlighted the delimitation of objects and levels of evaluation as a way to frame the reality under study [¹⁴²]. Scientific production on rights and public policies related to persons with disabilities after the Convention involves a multiplicity of policy thematic areas and an inclusive perspective as a guiding principle or desired goal. Only a few studies were found in the policy area addressing justice.

Evaluation studies, by pointing to gaps and relevant barriers in the realization of human rights ideals and definitions for persons with disabilities, as well as indicating advances and good practices, have revealed that the Convention has served as a benchmark for policy evaluation. It established a new human rights lexicon that moves beyond the deficit-based perspective on disability and advances the consolidation of policy models anchored in the principles of equality and nondiscrimination [¹].

One of the main findings of the review identified that, although there has been growing scientific production on the rights of persons with disabilities since the adoption of the Convention, there are still significant gaps in the use of indicators to monitor and evaluate these policies. Only 26 of the 124 included studies directly addressed the use of indicators, and only 7 of the 21 policy evaluation studies addressed them explicitly.

The review also highlighted the absence of standards for measuring and comparing progress and setbacks in public policies across regions and levels of government. This was mentioned in documents that highlighted difficulties in monitoring progress in implementing the Convention using a set of common indicators [¹³⁶], as well as in specific areas, such as indicators for intellectual disability [¹⁴⁰] and mental health [¹³⁴]. The lack of standardized indicators hindered accurate assessment of the impacts of these policies on the lives of persons with disabilities, as well as comparisons across different contexts and levels of data aggregation.

Some proposals are being developed to support this standardization, such as the WHO Model Disability Survey for identifying persons with disabilities, which includes the degree of disability and actions to ensure equal rights in society, based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [¹³⁷], and the World Health Organization’s disability and functioning disaggregation tool [⁸⁷].

Two studies proposed standardized lists of indicators: one based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [¹⁰⁸], and the other focused on rehabilitation, presenting a framework of indicators developed by a group of experts [⁷⁶].

Most other studies analyzed data from various sources, including country documents (laws and implemented policies), disability-related statistics, censuses, information systems, interviews, and data from specific programs for persons with disabilities at the local and national levels, making comparative analyses across datasets infeasible.

The lack of information and indicators related to persons with disabilities-that is, informational invisibility-is an important finding of this study, as although the Convention was published 17 years ago, most signatory countries still do not have sufficiently robust population data to evaluate and monitor policies. This delay may negatively impact people’s lives. A study that analyzed public policies in 14 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic and compared them with States’ obligations under the Convention observed that, even with public health policies implemented for the general population, it is necessary to expand these policies to address the needs of persons with disabilities [¹⁴²].

The cross-analysis of indicators aligned with the dimensions of the Sisdef matrix reinforced the perception of existing gaps in policy evaluation for persons with disabilities across the proposed categories (situational factors, inputs, processes, and outcomes). The findings pointed to key weaknesses that must be addressed to improve data sources and the production of population indicators that support decision-making in public policies.

Research on indicators for monitoring and evaluation remains relatively underexplored, given the volume of publications. Similarly, policy evaluation studies were not predominant. There are no standardized tools to assess and compare progress or setbacks in implemented policies or actions, which hampers the monitoring of CRPD implementation progress using a common set of indicators.

Mapping the scientific production related to rights and public policies for persons with disabilities after the CRPD made it possible to reveal the main policy themes of interest in the academic literature, as well as the still incipient adoption and standardization of indicators for policy analysis. This topic deserves attention on the scientific research agenda to advance perspectives on the rights of persons with disabilities and on social indicators for evaluating public policies targeting this population.

Ethical aspects

This research used publicly available and anonymized databases.

Protocol registration

The protocol was registered on the Zenodo platform under registration number 7789108 (https://zenodo.org/search?q=7789108&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=bestmatch).

Use of generative artificial intelligence

Not used.

Data availability

Data will be made available upon request and subject to the authors’ evaluation at the following e-mail address: [e-mail].

Referências

• ¹ Brasil. Convenção sobre os direitos das pessoas com deficiência. Lei brasileira de inclusão da pessoa com deficiência (Estatuto da Pessoa com Deficiência). Brasília; 2016 17 ago. 2025. https://www.mds.gov.br/webarquivos/Oficina%20PCF/JUSTI%C3%87A%20E%20CIDADANIA/convencao-e-lbi-pdf.pdf
  » https://www.mds.gov.br/webarquivos/Oficina%20PCF/JUSTI%C3%87A%20E%20CIDADANIA/convencao-e-lbi-pdf.pdf
• ² DHANDA, A. Construindo um novo léxico dos direitos humanos: Convenção sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiências. Sur, Rev int direitos human. 2008;5(8):42-59.
• ³ DINIZ, D. O que é deficiência. São Paulo: Editora Brasiliense, 2007.
• ⁴ AKOTIRENE, C. Interseccionalidade. São Paulo: Pólen Editorial, 2019.
• ⁵ COLLINS, PH. Interseccionalidade. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2020.
• ⁶ CRENSHAW, K. Documento para o encontro de especialistas em aspectos da discriminação racial relativos ao gênero. Rev Estud Fem. 2002;171-88.
• ⁷ MEFANO, V. Política pública para a pessoa com deficiência: Brasil e experiência internacional. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Rio de Janeiro, 2014. 29 abr. 2025. https://arca.fiocruz.br/items/4ad283b7-6d2d-4c04-9b1c-2e2c61d2027d
  » https://arca.fiocruz.br/items/4ad283b7-6d2d-4c04-9b1c-2e2c61d2027d
• ⁸ DUARTE, CMR; MARCELINO, MA; BOBBOLINI, CS; BOCCOLINI, PMM. Proteção social e política pública para populações vulneráveis: uma avaliação do Benefício de Prestação Continuada da Assistência Social - BPC no Brasil. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22(11):3515-26.
• ⁹ NOGUEIRA, GC; SCHOELLER, SD; RAMOS, FRS; PADILHA, MI; BREHMER, LCF; MARQUES, AMFB. Perfil das pessoas com deficiência física e Políticas Públicas: a distância entre intenções e gestos. Cien Saude Colet. 2016;21(10):3131-42.
• ¹⁰ Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo Demográfico 2022: pessoas com deficiência e pessoas diagnosticadas com transtorno do espectro autista - Resultados preliminares da amostra. Brasília: IBGE, 2025 6 nov. 2025. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=2102178
  » https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=2102178
• ¹¹ Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Pessoas com deficiência 2022: PNAD Contínua: divulgação dos resultados gerais. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, 2023 6 nov. 2025. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=2102013
  » https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=2102013
• ¹² EVANS, E; HOWLETT, S; KREMSTER, T; SIMPSON, J; KAYESS, R; TROLLOR, J. Service development for intellectual disability mental health: a human rights approach. J. Intellect. Dis. Res. 2012;56(11):1098-109.
• ¹³ Núcleo de Informação, Políticas Públicas e Inclusão Social. Sobre o Sisdef. Nippis, 2021 10 set. 2024. https://nippis.icict.fiocruz.br/sisdef/
  » https://nippis.icict.fiocruz.br/sisdef/
• ¹⁴ Organização das Nações Unidas. Transformando nosso mundo: a Agenda 2030 para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Nova Iorque: ONU, 2015 6 nov. 2025. https://brasil.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/agenda2030-pt-br.pdf
  » https://brasil.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/agenda2030-pt-br.pdf
• ¹⁵ DIAS, FS. Proposta de modelo para criação, monitoramento e avaliação de políticas públicas relacionadas às pessoas com deficiência. Petrópolis: Nippis, 2023.
• ¹⁶ PETERS, M; GODFREY, C; MCINERNEY, P; MUNN, Z; TRICCO, A; KHALIL, H. Scoping reviews: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI Global Wiki, 2020 11 set. 2024. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
  » https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
• ¹⁷ TRICCO, AC; LILLIE, E; ZARIN, W; O'BRIEN, KK; COLQUHOUN, H; LEVAC, D; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-73.
• ¹⁸ OUZZANI, M; HAMMADY, H; FEDOROWICZ, Z; ELMAGARMID, A. Rayyan: a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):210.
• ¹⁹ PAGE, MJ; MCKENZIE, JE; BOSSUYT, PM; BOUTRON, I; HOFFMANN, TC; MULROW, CD; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372(71).
• ²⁰ ABREU, TPC. Acesso das pessoas com deficiência mental aos direitos e garantias previstos na Lei Brasileira de Inclusão por meio do Sistema Único de Assistência Social. Saúde em Debate. 2019;43(n. especial 4):190-206.
• ²¹ ARANTES, ML. A inclusão das pessoas com deficiência na comunidade: o direito à moradia e as barreiras que impedem a sua efetivação [trabalho de conclusão de curso]. Vitória: Faculdade de Direito de Vitória, 2017 29 abr. 2025. http://repositorio.fdv.br:8080/handle/fdv/13/simple-search?query=&sort_by=scoreℴ=desc&rpp=10&filter_field_1=advisor&filter_type_1=equals&filter_value_1=Bussinguer%2C+Elda+Coelho+de+Azevedo&etal=0&filtername=author&filterquery=Arantes%2C+Maristela+Lugon&filtertype=equals
  » http://repositorio.fdv.br:8080/handle/fdv/13/simple-search?query=&sort_by=scoreℴ=desc&rpp=10&filter_field_1=advisor&filter_type_1=equals&filter_value_1=Bussinguer%2C+Elda+Coelho+de+Azevedo&etal=0&filtername=author&filterquery=Arantes%2C+Maristela+Lugon&filtertype=equals
• ²² ARSTEIN-KERSLAKE, A; MAKER, Y; DEUTSCHMANN, A; RICHARDSON, S. Criminalisation of sex with disabled people with cognitive impairments in Commonwealth countries: a colonial remnant that interferes with the human right to sexual agency. Int J Disabil Soc Justice. 2023;3(2):4-25.16.
• ²³ ASSAF, DL. A escolarização do aluno com síndrome de Down e o ensino especializado. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Universidade Metodista de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2017. 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.metodista.br/items/ab5de0ae-3ee3-48a9-9869-6a5fdbfe5fab
  » https://repositorio.metodista.br/items/ab5de0ae-3ee3-48a9-9869-6a5fdbfe5fab
• ²⁴ BREAU, G. Health systems, health policies, and health issues for people with intellectual disabilities in England. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2024;21(1).
• ²⁵ BREHMER-RINDERER, B; ZIGROVIC, L; NAUE, U; WEBER, G. Promoting health of persons with intellectual disabilities using the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Early implementation assessment in Spain and Hungary. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2013;10(1):25-36.
• ²⁶ COLVER, AF; DICKINSON, HO; PARKINSON, K; ARNAUD, C; BECKUNG, E; FAUCONNIER, J; et al. Access of children with cerebral palsy to the physical, social and attitudinal environment they need: a cross-sectional European study. J Disabil Rehabil. 2010;33(1):28-35.
• ²⁷ COSTA, JA; ANACHE, AA; SEBASTIÁN-HEREDERO, E. Accessibility and justice in higher education for students with visual disabilities: a human rights issue. Rev. Diálogos e Perspectivas. Nov 24 2023;10(2):39-50.
• ²⁸ COSTA FILHO, WM. O desafio da educação inclusiva para crianças com deficiência intelectual: um estudo do caso da Escola Estadual Marta da Conceição em Belém-Pará-Amazônia. 2016 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/23203/1/2016_WaldirMacieiradaCostaFilho.pdf
  » https://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/23203/1/2016_WaldirMacieiradaCostaFilho.pdf
• ²⁹ DAVIDSON, G; BROPHY, L; CAMPBELL, J; FARRELL, SJ; GOODING, P; O'BRIEN, AMAM. An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services. Int J Law and Psychiatry. 2016;44:30-40.
• ³⁰ DEB, S. SDG's indicators framework and disability in India. Indian J. Hum. Dev. 2017;11(2):232-50.
• ³¹ DÍAZ, MP; NOELL, JF; DÍAZ-GAROLERA, G; ROVIRA, CP. Are social services for people with intellectual disabilities aligned with the rights model? Opinions of people, their families and professionals. Alternativas. 2023;30(2):381-408.
• ³² DIDI, A; DOWSE, L; SMITH, L. Intellectual disability and complex support needs: human rights perspective for policy and practice. Intl J Hum Rts. 2018;22(8):989-1006.
• ³³ DUARTE, CMR; MARCELINO, MA; BOCCOLINI, CS; BOCCOLINI, PMM. Proteção social e política pública para populações vulneráveis: uma avaliação do Benefício de Prestação Continuada da Assistência Social - BPC no Brasil TT. Ciênc Saúde Colet (Impr). 2017;22(11):3515-26.
• ³⁴ ESPÍN-TELLO, SM; COLVER, A. How available to European children and young people with cerebral palsy are features of their environment that they need? Res Dev Disabil. 2017;71:1-10.
• ³⁵ FERNANDES, SFP. A formação de professores de ciências biológicas e a educação inclusiva: uma interface da formação inicial e continuada. 2012 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tedeserver/api/core/bitstreams/52775d61-a67a-4d1a-9b5b-1c9da52497ef/content
  » https://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tedeserver/api/core/bitstreams/52775d61-a67a-4d1a-9b5b-1c9da52497ef/content
• ³⁶ MATA, HCCCF. Educação inclusiva e alunos com Currículo Específico Individual (CEI): percepções da comunidade educativa. 2018 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.ipv.pt/bitstreams/cf9b27e7-1481-4edd-82d6-d3632ef7604a/download
  » https://repositorio.ipv.pt/bitstreams/cf9b27e7-1481-4edd-82d6-d3632ef7604a/download
• ³⁷ FIALA, E. A critical analysis of the implementation of the right to work and employment in the national context of Germany and Portugal. Implications for Social Policy. 2019 29 abr. 2025. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=de&user=mtyqm2QAAAAJ&citation_for_view=mtyqm2QAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C
  » https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=de&user=mtyqm2QAAAAJ&citation_for_view=mtyqm2QAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C
• ³⁸ FISHER, KR; LUTZ, D; GADOW, F; ROBINSON, S; GENDERA, S. A transformative framework for deinstitutionalisation. Res Pract Intellect Dev Disabil. 2015;2(1):60-72.
• ³⁹ GIBSON, BE; MYKITIUK, R. Health care access and support for disabled women in Canada: falling short of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: a qualitative study. Women's Health Issues. 2012;22(1):E111-8.
• ⁴⁰ GILL, NS; AMOS, A; MUHSEN, H; HATTON, J; EKANAYAKE, C; KISELY, S. Measuring the impact of revised mental health legislation on human rights in Queensland, Australia. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2020;73:101634.
• ⁴¹ GILL, NS; PARKER, S; AMOS, A; LAKEMAN, R; EMELEUS, M; BROPHY, L; et al. Opening the doors: critically examining the locked wards policy for public mental health inpatient units in Queensland Australia. Aust. New Zealand J Psychiatr. 2021;55(9):844-8.
• ⁴² GJERTSEN, H; HARDONK, S; INELAND, J. Work inclusion for people with intellectual disabilities in three Nordic countries: the current policy and challenges. Scand J Disabil Res. 2021;23(1):360-70.
• ⁴³ GÓMEZ, LE; MONSALVE, A; MORÁN, ML; ALCEDO, MA; LOMBARDI, M; SCHALOK, RL. Measurable indicators of CRPD for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities within the quality of life framework. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5123.
• ⁴⁴ GOMES, JCD. A inclusão social de pessoas com deficiência visual: realidade ou discurso? Dissertação (Mestrado) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2016 29 abr. 2025. https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/19010
  » https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/19010
• ⁴⁵ GOUGH, H; MORRIS, S. Dual diagnosis public policy in a federal system: the Canadian experience. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2012;9(3):166-74.
• ⁴⁶ GRIGAITĖ, U. Human rights conditions and quality of care in 'Independent Living Homes' for adults, who have intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, in Vilnius: analysis of good practice examples, systemic challenges and recommendations for the future. 2017 29 abr. 2025. https://run.unl.pt/entities/publication/29275925-fdfa-455a-bf27-db3052976c3c
  » https://run.unl.pt/entities/publication/29275925-fdfa-455a-bf27-db3052976c3c
• ⁴⁷ HENRIQUES, ARM. Reensaiar a lucidez: uma análise sobre a incapacidade eleitoral ativa das pessoas com deficiência mental à luz da Constituição. 2023.
• ⁴⁸ HODGSON, D. The educational rights of persons with disabilities: international human rights law and Australian law perspectives. Int. J. Discrim. Law. 2012;12(4):183-220.
• ⁴⁹ HOFFMAN, SJ; SRITHARAN, L; TEJPAR, A. Is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities impacting mental health laws and policies in high-income countries? A case study of implementation in Canada. BMC Int. Health Hum. Rights. 2016;16(1):28.
• ⁵⁰ JAFFRÈS, F. Articulation entre politique inclusive et travail protégé des personnes handicapées: le cas suédois. Formation emploi. 2021;(154):177-95.
• ⁵¹ JONASDOTTIR, SK; EGILSON, SÞP; POLGAR, J; JÓNASDÓTTIR, SK; EGILSON, SÞP; POLGAR, J. Structural factors affecting community mobility for people with mobility impairments in Iceland: a human rights and occupational perspective. J. Occup. Sci. 2021;28(1):59-70.
• ⁵² KELLY, BD. Multi-level protection of rights: India's Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Articles 12 and 14). Int J Law Psychiatry. 2023;91:101937.
• ⁵³ MAHDANIAN, AA; LAPORTA, M; DREW BOLD, N; FUNK, M; PURAS, D. Human rights in mental healthcare: a review of current global situation. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2023;35(2):150-62.
• ⁵⁴ MCCUSKER, P; GILLESPIE, L; DAVIDSON, G; VICARY, S; STONE, K. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and social work: evidence for impact? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(20).
• ⁵⁵ MARTINS, CD. Deficiência e inclusão em Portugal: as políticas para quem quer ser ouvido. 2018 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/entities/publication/074c5208-f6e1-4983-8100-df09f36cb0a1
  » https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/entities/publication/074c5208-f6e1-4983-8100-df09f36cb0a1
• ⁵⁶ MATSUI, R. Employment opportunities of persons with disabilities and the special subsidiary company scheme in Japan. Work. 2013;45(2):261-5.
• ⁵⁷ MIRANDA, DHS. Capacidade de exercício das pessoas com deficiência intelectual: institutos jurídicos de proteção e apoio nos ordenamentos português e brasileiro e a Convenção sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência. 2024 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.grupoautonoma.pt/entities/publication/572a5db6-659d-42a1-b5a3-27122373fa0d
  » https://repositorio.grupoautonoma.pt/entities/publication/572a5db6-659d-42a1-b5a3-27122373fa0d
• ⁵⁸ MOMM, MAL; BARACT, EM; DELGADO, MJG. Trabalho da pessoa com deficiência: harmonização das cotas da deficiência e da aprendizagem a partir da interpretação da Convenção sobre os Direitos da Pessoa com Deficiência. Rev Dir Fundam Relac Trab Soc Emp. 2023;9(2).
• ⁵⁹ MUNOZ-BAELL, IM; ALVAREZ-DARDET, C; RUIZ, MT; FERREIRO-LAGO, E; AROCA-FERNANDEZ, E. Setting the stage for school health-promoting programmes for deaf children in Spain. Health Promot. Internation. 2008;23(4):311-27.
• ⁶⁰ NGWENA, CG. Human right to inclusive education: Exploring a double discourse of inclusive education using South Africa as a case study. Neth. Q. of Hum. Rights. 2013;31(4):473-504.
• ⁶¹ OLIVEIRA, CB. Aposentadoria da pessoa com deficiência sob a visão dos Direitos Humanos. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2016 29 abr. 2025. https://tede2.pucsp.br/bitstream/handle/19610/2/Carla%20Benedetti%20de%20Oliveira.pdf
  » https://tede2.pucsp.br/bitstream/handle/19610/2/Carla%20Benedetti%20de%20Oliveira.pdf
• ⁶² PAGAIME, A. Estudantes com deficiência e as cotas do Sisu: critérios de elegibilidade para ingresso nas universidades federais. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2022 29 abr. 2025. https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/48/48137/tde-18012023-104232/publico/ADRIANA_PAGAIME_rev.pdf
  » https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/48/48137/tde-18012023-104232/publico/ADRIANA_PAGAIME_rev.pdf
• ⁶³ PARMENTER, TR. Rights are necessary but insufficient for the achievement of the full inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2024;8(1):97-107.
• ⁶⁴ PÉREZ-CURIEL, P; VICENTE, E; MORÁN, ML; GÓMEZ, LE. The right to sexuality, reproductive health, and found a family for people with intellectual disability: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2).
• ⁶⁵ PINTO, MTJ. Políticas de proteção social, direitos humanos e deficiência: um estudo comparativo entre Marrocos e a Tunísia. 2020 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/entities/publication/d1272500-d61d-4f09-8e56-e4cf255d9a26
  » https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/entities/publication/d1272500-d61d-4f09-8e56-e4cf255d9a26
• ⁶⁶ SAIGAL, N; NARAYAN, R. Structural barriers at the workplace for employees with vision and locomotor disabilities in New Delhi, India. Work. 2014;48(3):329-37.
• ⁶⁷ SAK, LTB. Inclusão de pessoas com deficiência (PCD) em empresas: uma leitura das práticas de inclusão a partir das considerações finais do comitê sobre os direitos da pessoa com deficiência da ONU sobre o Brasil. 2020 29 abr. 2025. https://bdtd.ibict.br/vufind/Record/PUC_CAMP-5_21c00ba88d158640b55b5c861bea8e97
  » https://bdtd.ibict.br/vufind/Record/PUC_CAMP-5_21c00ba88d158640b55b5c861bea8e97
• ⁶⁸ SAMPER, MB; FERNÁNDEZ, AC. La inserción de las personas con discapacidad en el empleo público. Análisis jurídico-económico de la situación en la Comunidad de Madrid. CIRIEC-Espana Revista de Economia Publica, Social y Cooperativa. 2017;(91):203-34.
• ⁶⁹ SANTANA, MZ. Políticas públicas de educação inclusiva voltada para estudantes com deficiência na educação superior: o caso da Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB). 2016 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/18049/1/TESE%20FINAL%20Maria%20Z%c3%a9lia%20de%20Santana.pdf
  » https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/18049/1/TESE%20FINAL%20Maria%20Z%c3%a9lia%20de%20Santana.pdf
• ⁷⁰ SANTIAGO, RAM. Trabalhador com deficiência e o emprego apoiado em Portugal e no Brasil. 2016.
• ⁷¹ SANTOS, RN. Convenção internacional sobre os direitos das pessoas com deficiência no acesso à saúde e à reabilitação: o impacto nas políticas públicas e governança em Cabo Verde. 2024.
• ⁷² SEQUEIRA, BTO. Da inclusão à cidadania: um estudo sobre o grupo de estudos surdos da UCPEL. 2015.
• ⁷³ SILVA, AAB. O caminho da inclusão de pessoas com deficiência no mercado de trabalho: onde estamos? 2016.
• ⁷⁴ SILVA, GOD. Acesso e permanência de estudantes surdos no ensino superior: desafios frente à implementação de políticas públicas de inclusão no Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Espírito Santo. 2023.
• ⁷⁵ SILVEIRA, SVS. Das políticas de inclusão escolar aos projetos políticos pedagógicos da rede comum pública de ensino de Jataí-GO. 2017.
• ⁷⁶ SKEMPES, D; MELVIN, J; VON GROOTE, P; STUCKI, G; BICKENBACH, J. Using concept mapping to develop a human rights based indicator framework to assess country efforts to strengthen rehabilitation provision and policy: The Rehabilitation System Diagnosis and Dialogue framework (RESYST) 16 Studies in Human Society 1605 Policy and Administration 18 Law and Legal Studies 1801 Law. Global Health. 2018;14(1):96.
• ⁷⁷ SOUZA, IA. Das capacidades básicas às combinadas como fundamento da dignidade inerente e do direito ao trabalho da pessoa com deficiência. Teoria Jurídica Contemporânea. 2020;5(1):135-57.
• ⁷⁸ SRISUPPAPHON, D; SRIBOONROJ, A; RIEWPAIBOON, W; TANGCHAROENSATHIEN, V. Effective implementation of the UNCRPD by Thailand State Party: challenges and potential remedies. BMC Intern. Health Hum. Rights. 2017;17(1):15.
• ⁷⁹ SYMEONIDOU, S. Rights of people with intellectual disability in Cyprus: policies and practices related to greater social and educational inclusion. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2015;12(2):120-31.
• ⁸⁰ TIBYRIÇÁ, RF. As medidas de apoio para as pessoas com Transtorno do Espectro Autista nas escolas públicas na cidade de São Paulo: análise a partir do direito e da educação brasileira e portuguesa comparados. 2019 29 abr. 2025. https://adelpha-api.mackenzie.br/server/api/core/bitstreams/d99c4bc4-ea61-4bf0-90c0-901d4e936851/content
  » https://adelpha-api.mackenzie.br/server/api/core/bitstreams/d99c4bc4-ea61-4bf0-90c0-901d4e936851/content
• ⁸¹ TONGSIRI, S; PLOYLEARMSANG, C; HAWSUTISIMA, K; RIEWPAIBOON, W; TANGCHAROENSATHIEN, V. Thaïlande: Modification des domiciles de personnes handicapées physiquement. Bull. WHO. 2017;95(2):140-5.
• ⁸² TRANI, JF; PITZER, KA; VASQUEZ ESCALLON, J; BAKHSHI, P. Access to services from persons with disabilities in Afghanistan: is community based rehabilitation making a difference? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19(10):6341.
• ⁸³ TRIGUEIRO, CS. Políticas afirmativas para pessoas com deficiência e a efetividade do princípio do pleno emprego: o caso dos portadores de visão monocular e surdez unilateral. 2014 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/bitstream/tede/7784/2/arquivototal.pdf
  » https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/bitstream/tede/7784/2/arquivototal.pdf
• ⁸⁴ VON GRANITZ, H; REINE, I; SONNANDER, K; WINBLAD, U. Do personal assistance activities promote participation for persons with disabilities in Sweden? Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(24):2512-21.
• ⁸⁵ VULCANO, ACS. Direitos humanos, inclusão social e o trabalho da pessoa com deficiência. 2018 29 abr. 2025. http://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/70
  » http://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/70
• ⁸⁶ WALTZ, M; MOL, T; GITTINS, E; SCHIPPERS, A. Disability, access to food and the UN CRPD: Navigating discourses of human rights in the Netherlands. Social Inclusion. 2018;6(1):51-60.
• ⁸⁷ WINKLER, P; KONDRÁTOVÁ, L; KAGSTROM, A; KUCERA, M; PALÁNOVÁ, T; SALOMONOVÁ, M; et al. Adherence to the convention on the rights of people with disabilities in Czech Psychiatric hospitals: a nationwide evaluation study. Health Hum Rights. 2020;22(1):21-33.
• ⁸⁸ XAVIER, JCMM. Silêncio e invisibilidade: Iniquidades expressas na comunicação sobre deficiência em campanhas do Ministério da Saúde, entre 1988 e 2020. 2022 29 abr. 2025. https://arca.fiocruz.br/items/ee5f62cd-1bc5-4d99-87e8-e9006ea8e886
  » https://arca.fiocruz.br/items/ee5f62cd-1bc5-4d99-87e8-e9006ea8e886
• ⁸⁹ YILMAZ, V. An examination of disability and employment policy in Turkey through the perspectives of disability non-governmental organisations and policy-makers. Disability and Society. 2020;35(5):760-82.
• ⁹⁰ GARCÍA-PIÑA, CA. Forced sterilization of girls and women with disabilities: what health professionals should know to avoid the violation of their rights. Acta Pediatr Mex. 2025;46(2):179-93.
• ⁹¹ GOULD, M; LEBLOIS, A; CESA BIANCHI, F; MONTENEGRO, V. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, assistive technology and information and communication technology requirements: where do we stand on implementation? Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2015;10(4):295-300.
• ⁹² MAGNUSSON, L; BICKENBACH, J. Access to human rights for persons using prosthetic and orthotic assistive devices in Sierra Leone. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2020;42(8):1093-100.
• ⁹³ SILVA, IP. Políticas públicas para inclusão no mercado de trabalho de pessoas com deficiência. Publica-IFRS. 2023;1(1).
• ⁹⁴ WAHYUDI, A; FATHAN; KASIYATI, S. Access to justice for persons with disabilities as victims of sexual violence. Inklusi. 2023;10:219-36.
• ⁹⁵ WOLBRING, G; DELORIA, R. Health equity and health inequity of disabled people: a scoping review. Sustainability. 2024;16(16);7143.
• ⁹⁶ BENEDETTI, C; HORVATH JÚNIOR, M. A proteção da pessoa com deficiência como ação afirmativa de inclusão. Rev Int Consinter Dir. 2024;763-84.
• ⁹⁷ GOODLEY, D; RUNSWICK-COLE, K. Problematising policy: conceptions of "child", "disabled" and "parents" in social policy in England. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2011;15(1):71-85.
• ⁹⁸ NJELESANI, J; CAMERON, C; NJELESANI, D; JAMALI, M; ANDRION, JJD; MUNTHALI, A. Recognizing the rights of children with disabilities in Malawi. Disabil Soc. 2024;40(7):1853-71.
• ⁹⁹ SHIKAKO, K; LENRUCHA, R; HUNT, M; JODOIN-PILON, S; CHANDRA, A; KATALIFOS, A; et al. Children with disabilities in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of COVID-19 policies through a disability rights lens. Children. 2023;10(6):942.
• ¹⁰⁰ FURGALSKA, M; DE LONDRAS, F. Towards a rights-based approach for disabled women's access to abortion. Med. Law. Rev. 2024;32(4):486-504.
• ¹⁰¹ LEE, K; DEVINE, A; MARCO, MJ; ZAYAS, J; GILL-ATKINSON, L; VAUGHAN, C. Sexual and reproductive health services for women with disability: a qualitative study with service providers in the Philippines. BMC Women's Health. 2015;15(1):87.
• ¹⁰² RADE, BK; TAMIRU, AT; AYALEM, GL; TAYE, EB; MELKIE, M; ABERA, A; et al. Prevalence and factors associated with sexual and reproductive health services use among reproductive age women with disabilities: a community-based cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2023;23(1):215.
• ¹⁰³ COE, S. D'autres enseignements concrets tirés de cinq projets de développement incluant les personnes handicapées. Development in Practice. 2012;22(3):400-8.
• ¹⁰⁴ EYRAUD, B. A human rights approach to disability? Applying the spiral model to the French adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Droit Soc. 2023;113(1):55-71.
• ¹⁰⁵ COLON-CABRERA, D; SHARMA, S; WARREN, N; SAKELLARIOU, D. Examining the role of government in shaping disability inclusiveness around COVID-19: a framework analysis of Australian guidelines. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2021;20:1-11.
• ¹⁰⁶ GRANGAARD, S; HEDVALL, PO; LID, IM. Universal design and accessibility as an act or a state: a comparison of policies in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2024;320:2-9.
• ¹⁰⁷ BARRERA JUAREZ, YF. Inclusão de pessoas com deficiência no ensino superior: um panorama Brasil-México. 2020 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.utfpr.edu.br/jspui/bitstream/1/4982/2/inclusaodeficienciabrasilmexico.pdf
  » https://repositorio.utfpr.edu.br/jspui/bitstream/1/4982/2/inclusaodeficienciabrasilmexico.pdf
• ¹⁰⁸ BICKENBACH, JE. Monitoring the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: data and the international classification of functioning, disability and health. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(Suppl 4):S8.
• ¹⁰⁹ FERRI, D; FAVALLI, S. Web accessibility for people with disabilities in the European Union: paving the road to social inclusion. Societies. 2018;8(2):40.
• ¹¹⁰ FERRI, D; GIANNOUMIS, GA. A Revaluation of the cultural dimension of disability policy in the European Union: the impact of digitization and web accessibility. Behav Sci Law. 2014;32(1):33-51.
• ¹¹¹ GARG, A; SKEMPES, D; BICKENBACH, J. Legal and regulatory approaches to rehabilitation planning: a concise overview of current laws and policies addressing access to rehabilitation in five European countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17(12):1.
• ¹¹² LORD, JE; STEIN, MA; FIALA-BUTORA, J. Facilitating an equal right to vote for persons with disabilities. J. Hum. Rights Pract. 2014;6(1):115-39.
• ¹¹³ MARINHO, MG. Acesso e permanência de pessoas com deficiência no mercado de trabalho: a alternativa do emprego apoiado. Revista Interinstitucional Brasileira de Terapia Ocupacional. 2019;3(2):260-76.
• ¹¹⁴ MAXWELL, N. Self-determination and community inclusion: exploring policy reform in day services for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the Republic of Ireland. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2025;22(1):e70003.
• ¹¹⁵ MCCARTHY, TS. Regulating restraint and seclusion in Australian government schools: a comparative human rights analysis. QUT Law Review. 2019;18(2):194.
• ¹¹⁶ MIRA-ALADRÉN, M; MARTÍN-PEÑA, J; GIL-LACRUZ, M. Evaluation of social interventions with people with disabilities: a systematic literature review. Soc Work Res. 2024;48(2):126-39.
• ¹¹⁷ MORGAN, C. The experiences of disabled people in the United Arab Emirates: barriers to participation in higher education and employment. Disabil Soc. 2023;38(3):421-44.
• ¹¹⁸ QUEIROZ, IFR. Atenção primária à saúde das pessoas com deficiências. 2023 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/77657/7/2022_dis_ifrqueiroz.pdf
  » https://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/77657/7/2022_dis_ifrqueiroz.pdf
• ¹¹⁹ RAMOS, SG. Educação inclusiva: uma reflexão sobre a política social da pessoa com deficiência. 2015 29 abr. 2025. https://tede2.pucgoias.edu.br/bitstream/tede/2193/1/SANDRA%20GOMES%20RAMOS.pdf
  » https://tede2.pucgoias.edu.br/bitstream/tede/2193/1/SANDRA%20GOMES%20RAMOS.pdf
• ¹²⁰ RESENDE, EA. O direito fundamental ao trabalho da pessoa com deficiência no Brasil: caminhos para a eficácia social. 2016 29 abr. 2025. https://ri.ufs.br/bitstream/riufs/4385/1/EMERSON_ALBUQUERQUE_RESENDE.pdf
  » https://ri.ufs.br/bitstream/riufs/4385/1/EMERSON_ALBUQUERQUE_RESENDE.pdf
• ¹²¹ AMORIM, MM. Direito a educação superior para pessoas com deficiência no Brasil e Uruguai: estudo comparativo no decênio da inclusão -2006-2016. 2019 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/36820/1/2019_ManoelMendesAmorim.pdf
  » https://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/36820/1/2019_ManoelMendesAmorim.pdf
• ¹²² ANDRADE, RM. Práticas inclusivas orientadas ao estudante com deficiência intelectual no ensino profissional técnico de nível médio no campus Boituva - IFSP. 2019 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/items/6bb8c466-4a74-4180-b6c2-d7a904f65da7
  » https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/items/6bb8c466-4a74-4180-b6c2-d7a904f65da7
• ¹²³ CABRAL, RLG; OLIVEIRA, RRN; REIS, ULS. A implementação do direito à educação superior das pessoas com deficiência no Brasil: avanços e desafios pendentes na agenda de concretização da cidadania. Pensar. 2022;27(4):1-14.
• ¹²⁴ CHAGAS, PHRS. O direito à educação para as pessoas com deficiência nos atos normativos produzidos pelo Conselho Nacional de Educação (2008-2019). 2020 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/41323/1/2020_Patr%c3%adciaHelenaRibeirodeSouzaChagas.pdf
  » https://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/41323/1/2020_Patr%c3%adciaHelenaRibeirodeSouzaChagas.pdf
• ¹²⁵ CISTERNAS, DS; AGUILA, MF. Citizen participation of people with disabilities and intersectoral public policies offered by the state in the region of Magallanes, Chile. Revista Del Clad Reforma Y Democracia. 2020;(77):187-214.
• ¹²⁶ CURITIBA, JA. Educação especial no Brasil e a Lei Brasileira de Inclusão: aproximações e afastamentos. 2020 29 abr. 2025. https://repositorio.unicamp.br/Busca/Download?codigoArquivo=449208
  » https://repositorio.unicamp.br/Busca/Download?codigoArquivo=449208
• ¹²⁷ DURHAM, J; SYCHAREUN, V; RODNEY, A; GOUDA, HN; RICHARDS, N; RAMPATIGE, R; et al. Health information systems and disability in the Lao PDR: a qualitative study. Int. J. Health Plann. Manage. 2016;31(4):446-58.
• ¹²⁸ GARRIDO-CUMBRERA, M; CHACÓN-GARCÍA, J; SCHÄDLER, J. The Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Un: analysis of the implementation in Andalucía (Spain) of Article 33. Rev. Chil. Ter. Ocup. 2016;16(2):119.
• ¹²⁹ MORGAN, C. The experiences of disabled people in the United Arab Emirates: Barriers to participation in higher education and employment. Disability and Society. 2023;38(3):421-44.
• ¹³⁰ MURPHY, M; THOMPSON, S; DOYLE, DM; FERRI, D. Inclusive education and the law in Ireland. Int. J. Law Context. 2022;19(2):1-21.
• ¹³¹ REVILLARD, A. Vulnerable rights: the incomplete realization of disability social rights in France. Social Sciences. 2018;7(6):88.
• ¹³² ELEKANACHI, RU; SHIKAKO, K; SNIDER, L; DAHAN-OLIEL, N. A portrait of the rights of children with disabilities in Nigeria: a policy review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2023;20(21):6996.
• ¹³³ GRIGAITĖ, U; LEVICKAITĖ, K; JUODKAITĖ, D; GOŠTAUTAITĖ-MIDTTUN, N. Promoting human rights-based deinstitutionalization in Lithuania by applying the WHO's QualityRights assessments. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2025;37(1):118.
• ¹³⁴ VAN HOUT, MC; KAIMA, R; MHANGO, V; KEWLEY, S; MARINIELLO, T. Judiciarisation of the mentally ill and/or mentally incapacitated in the Malawi criminal justice system: gaps and flaws of human rights protection. Forensic Sci. Int. Mind Law. 2023;4:100121.
• ¹³⁵ SHIKAKO, K; LENRUCHA, R; HUNT, M; JODOIN, S; ELSABBAGH, M; HUDON, A; et al. How did governments address the needs of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic? An analysis of 14 countries' policies based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2023;12(1):7111.
• ¹³⁶ STAVERT, J; MCKAY, C. Scotland, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and repurposing of mental health and capacity law. Hum Rights Law Rev. 2024;25(2).
• ¹³⁷ YANG, DWJ. Disability discrimination in the provision of health insurance: Article 25(e) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Int. J. Discrim. Law. 2024;24(1):48-66.
• ¹³⁸ SCHERER, N; BANDA-CHALWE, M; CHANSA-KABALI, T; NSEIBO, K; SEKETI, QE; MCKENZIE, J; et al. Disability research in Zambia: a scoping review. Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 2024;26(1):44-66.
• ¹³⁹ SCHIDEL, R. Universal enfranchisement for citizens with cognitive disabilities: a moral-status argument. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Polit. Philos. 2023;26(5):658-79.
• ¹⁴⁰ SULEIMAN, NM; MAJEED, ASA; ZUHAIR, M; JASIM, BAA; TURCHYN, M. Global impact and intersectionality: a comprehensive analysis of the CRPD's implementation and the future of disability rights in international law. J. Ecohumanism. 2024;3(5):467-80.
• ¹⁴¹ MORALES, JG. Progresividad en el acceso al trabajo de las mujeres con discapacidad en Colombia. Vniversitas. 2022;71:1-14.
• ¹⁴² SILVA, LMVD. Conceitos, abordagens e estratégias para a avaliação em saúde. In: HARTZ, ZMA; SILVA, LMV (org). Avaliação em saúde: dos modelos teóricos à prática na avaliação de programas e sistemas de saúde. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fiocruz, 2005. p. 15-39.
• ¹⁴³ LASCOUMES, P; LE GALÈS, P (org). Sociologia da Ação Pública. Editora da Universidade Federal de Alagoas, 2012 12 set. 2024. https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-02100045
  » https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-02100045
• ¹⁴⁴ World Health Organization. Relatório mundial sobre a deficiência. São Paulo: SEDPcD, 2012. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/6ec54f7c-5586-4e2e-bb13-e960fa979a81/content
  » https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/6ec54f7c-5586-4e2e-bb13-e960fa979a81/content
• ¹⁴⁵ WALSH, PN. Health indicators and intellectual disability. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry. 2008;21(5):474-8.
• ¹⁴⁶ FURTADO, JP; ONOCKO-CAMPOS, RT; MOREIRA, MIB; TRAPÉ, TL. A elaboração participativa de indicadores para a avaliação em saúde mental. Cad. Saúde Pública. 2013;29:102-10.
• ¹⁴⁷ Organização Mundial da Saúde. Classificação Internacional de Funcionalidade, Incapacidade e Saúde. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 2019.

Edited by

• Editor-in-Chief:
  Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7648-0472

• Scientifc Editor:
  Everton Nunes da Silva Associate https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8747-4185

• Editor:
  Carolina Müller Ferreira https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7975-5777

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  03 Aug 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  16 June 2025
• Accepted
  12 Apr 2026