Our Work – Johns Hopkins University Disability Health Research Center

Structural ableism—the way policies, practices, and institutions are built to advantage non-disabled people and exclude or disadvantage disabled people—drives many of the health inequities disabled people face. These inequities show up across everyday systems that shape health and well-being, including healthcare, education, employment, housing, transportation, communication, and the built environment. Yet structural ableism is often invisible in data, under-measured in research, and therefore difficult to change. 

This multi-year project, co-led by Dr. Bonnielin Swenor (Johns Hopkins) and Dr. Rupa Valdez (University of Virginia), is the first large-scale effort to define, measure, and test the health impact of structural ableism. Working closely with national and local disability organizations and an advisory committee of disabled leaders and scholars, we are using a deeply community-informed approach across all phases—from concept development to tool design to interpretation and dissemination. 

Our work proceeds in three linked steps: 

• Name and map the problem. We are characterizing the dimensions of structural ableism through text-based analysis of history, policy, and lived-experience writings, and through key-informant interviews with disability rights and disability justice advocates. We are intentionally checking that literature themes and interview themes reflect one another, so our final framework is both rigorous and grounded in community experience. 
• Build measures people can use. We are developing and validating two complementary tools: an individual-level survey that captures people’s experiences with structural ableism in plain language, refined through cognitive interviews with disabled participants; and a community-level index that draws on nationally representative datasets (e.g., BRFSS, IPUMS Health Surveys) to quantify structural ableism across domains like income, education, employment, housing, transportation, and access to information/communication.
• Link structure to health. We will test how these measures relate to key access and outcome indicators—such as having a usual source of care, health insurance coverage, unmet need due to cost, and recent preventive checkups—to make the pathways from structure to health visible. 

What makes this project different is both scope and design: we are measuring structural ableism at two levels (individual and community), centering disabled people’s perspectives throughout, and building tools that policymakers, health systems, researchers, and advocates can actually use to track change over time. Our framework also recognizes intersectionality—the ways structural ableism interacts with racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of oppression—to shape health in compounding ways. 

By creating clear, validated measures, this project turns an often-unseen driver of inequity into something measurable and actionable. The end goal is practical: provide credible evidence of where structural ableism is concentrated, how it affects health and healthcare, and which strategies are most promising to dismantle it—so health outcomes improve for the 67 million Americans with disabilities 

Supported by: NIH Grant R01HD116303 

In addition to this NIH-funded project, we are expanding this work through a supplemental partnership with the WITH Foundation to deepen inclusion and accessibility.

With support from the WITH Foundation, we are ensuring that adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are fully included as co-creators in this work. This supplemental project partners directly with people with IDD to co-develop plain-language research definitions, broaden recruitment to better reflect intersectional experiences, and co-design an AI-based tool that translates complex research into accessible language. These efforts strengthen both the rigor and accessibility of our structural ableism measures. By centering people with IDD and making research more understandable, inclusive, and actionable, this work helps build tools that can be used across disciplines to identify and dismantle systemic barriers shaping inequities in healthcare and beyond.

Explore the SNAP Dashboard, which ranks SNAP enrollment websites by metrics of accessibility and disability-inclusive practices.

This open-access study looks at how the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) counts disabled adults, and how the wording of survey questions can change what we learn. The team compared two question sets: the American Community Survey (ACS) questions and the Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS) questions currently used in the NHIS. They analyzed NHIS data from 2011–2012 and monitored participants over time, up to 2019. 

The big takeaway: the WG-SS missed more than half of the adults whom the ACS identified as disabled.  

Because the WG-SS mainly captures people with multiple disabilities, it also makes disability look more strongly linked to death than it really is. In other words, death rates among “counted” disabled adults appear higher with the WG-SS than with the ACS, partly because the WG-SS is selecting a group with more complex needs. 

The study recommends re-evaluating how the NHIS measures disability and investing in better, broader questions. Right now, the ACS looks like the stronger starting point for counting a wider range of disabled adults, with added items needed to include groups often missed (such as intellectual/developmental disability, mental health conditions, and chronic illness). Better data means better policies, funding, and care. 

Citation: Landes, S., Swenor, B.K., & Vaitsiakhovich, N. (2024). Counting Disability in the National Health Interview Survey and its consequences: Comparing the American Community Survey to the Washington Group Disability. Disability and Health Journal, 17(2), 101553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2023.101553

Using nationally representative 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data, this study provides updated estimates of disability prevalence in the United States. The analysis found that 26.8% of US adults—representing 67.2 million people—reported any disability, and 11.7% reported more than one disability. Among disability types captured by the federally mandated 6-question sequence, mobility was the most prevalent, followed by cognition or mental, independent living, hearing, vision, and self-care disabilities. Adults with disability were more likely to be older, female, Hispanic, have lower education and income, and be unemployed. The study also identified important differences across race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity, with higher disability prevalence among bisexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming individuals. These national estimates likely underestimate the true prevalence of disability, given that BRFSS excludes institutionalized adults and the 6QS captures primarily severe impairments.

Overall, the findings underscore the importance of disability surveillance systems in identifying health inequities and supporting public health programs that address health inequities for people with disabilities and meet the needs of everyone in our communities.  

Citation: Varadaraj, V., Deal, J.A., Campanile, J., Swenor, B.K., et al. (2021). National Prevalence of Disability and Disability Types Among Adults in the U.S., 2019. JAMA Network Open, 4(10), e2130358. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30358

In this article, Dr. Swenor calls for a framework of disability data justice, which ensures disability is prioritized across all public health data systems.  

She outlines six key recommendations:  

1. collect disability as a core demographic, 
2. ensure comprehensive disability data across health, housing, transportation, education, employment, and more,  
3. adopt a growth mindset as disability evolves (e.g., long COVID),  
4. partner with the disability community in data design and collection,  
5. make public health data and websites accessible, and 
6. expand diversity in public health leadership to include disabled professionals. 

Dr. Swenor highlights that building inclusive data systems is essential to dismantle ableism, improve pandemic preparedness, and advance equity for everyone. 

Citation: Swenor, B.K. (2022). A Need for Disability Data Justice. Health Affairs Forefront. https://doi.org/10.1377/forefront.20220818.426231

The Disability Data Equity Research Working Group, part of the Disability Health Equity Research Network (DHERN), is dedicated to advancing research on disability data equity while promoting the participation and leadership of disabled scholars. The group recognizes that high-quality, inclusive data are essential to identifying and addressing health inequities experienced by disabled people. However, disability data are often missing from national surveys, vital statistics, and other large-scale data systems. When collected, these data frequently rely on limited or inconsistent measures that fail to capture the diversity of the disability community. 

The working group brings together researchers committed to improving disability measurement through both conceptual and empirical studies. By evaluating existing approaches and developing more inclusive methods, the group works to ensure that disability is accurately represented in national and international data. Members also emphasize the importance of partnering with disabled researchers and communities to create equitable standards for data collection. 

This collaborative effort provides a foundation for evidence-based policy and practice aimed at reducing disparities and advancing equity. The group meets monthly and welcomes engagement from those interested in building more inclusive disability data systems. 

Contact [email protected] to learn more about the Disability Data Equity Research Working Group

Reliable disability data are essential for shaping effective and equitable public health policy. This Health Policy Brief emphasizes why expanding disability data collection at the state level is critical to understanding and addressing disparities affecting people with disabilities. 

State governments play a pivotal role in data collection but currently lack standardized, comprehensive systems for tracking disability as a core demographic factor. Without consistent data, inequities in health care, housing, employment, and community participation remain under-addressed. Recommendations include adopting standardized disability questions, incorporating diverse data sources that reflect social determinants of health, strengthening community partnerships with people with disabilities, and building capacity within public health agencies to analyze and use disability data. The brief also calls for increased federal support and funding to help states implement these improvements. 

These actions would create the infrastructure needed to identify and close health gaps for people with disabilities, supporting the broader goal of health equity across the United States. 

Citation: Castro, F., Swenor, B.K., & Robles, J. (2025). Improved State-Level Disability Data Are Necessary for Advancing Health Equity. Health Policy Brief. https://doi.org/10.1377/hpb20250320.114325

This brief outlines practices that states and territories can implement to strengthen disability data collection and use as a foundation for advancing health equity. With more than one in four U.S. adults having a disability, meaningful inclusion of people with disabilities in data collection and decision-making is essential to designing effective policies and programs. 

The brief highlights examples from Colorado, Oregon, Ohio, and Massachusetts, illustrating strategies such as legislative mandates for disability data collection, recognizing disability as a demographic and health disparity population, and promoting interdepartmental collaboration. 

Key recommendations include: 

• Standardizing disability definitions and data collection methods across federal, state, and territory programs. 
• Ensuring accessibility and inclusion in data collection through training, community partnerships, and collaboration with disability-led organizations. 
• Developing centralized data hubs to improve sharing and analysis of disability data. 
• Promoting transparency while protecting privacy, and involving people with disabilities in every stage of data use. 
• Establishing legislation and funding to sustain these efforts and build state-level capacity. 

By implementing these practices, states and territories can create more accurate, inclusive, and actionable data systems that inform equitable public health and policy decisions. 

Citation: Swenor, B., Varadaraj, V., Castro, F., Cerilli, C., & Jo, G. (2024). Promising Practices for State and Territory Disability Data Collection and Usage. National Governors Association.

There is an urgent need to include people with disabilities in clinical and public health research. Despite representing over 25% of U.S. adults and experiencing significant health inequities, people with disabilities remain largely excluded from initiatives to diversify research study populations. Bonnie Swenor and Jennifer Deal emphasize that current research paradigms often view disability solely as an outcome to prevent or treat, leaving gaps in evidence about how to maximize health and equity for this community.

The authors identify key barriers to participation, including restrictive eligibility criteria, inaccessible study procedures, medical mistrust rooted in historical harms, and inadequate collection of disability data. This persistent exclusion reinforces marginalization and limits the generalizability of research findings. Swenor and Deal propose a roadmap for stakeholders—including academic institutions, funding agencies, journals, and policymakers— to ensure disability inclusion at all stages of research, from study design to dissemination. Centering disability in research strengthens the quality of evidence, promotes social justice, and supports equitable health outcomes.

Citation: Swenor, B.K., & Deal, J.A. (2022). Disability Inclusion as a Key Component of Research Study Diversity. New England Journal of Medicine, 386(3), 205–207. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2115475

This article highlights ableism as a root barrier to health equity and finds that the recent designation of people with disabilities as a health disparity population marks an important but incomplete step toward meaningful change. While this policy shift reflects years of advocacy by the disability community, public health—and epidemiology in particular—has historically overlooked the role of ableism in shaping health inequities.

Epidemiology can play a central role in addressing ableism by reframing disability not as an outcome, but as a population-level experience shaped by discrimination and structural barriers. There is a need to move beyond medicalized models of disability and calls for more inclusive, modern frameworks that separate disability from disease and functioning, while better reflecting the perspectives and experiences of disabled people.

The article also calls for concrete action across three domains: improving how disability is measured and conceptualized; collecting disability data as a core demographic variable across surveys, research, and health systems; and ensuring accessibility throughout data collection, analysis, and dissemination. Together, these efforts are presented as essential to preventing the reinforcement of ableism in public health research and to ensuring disability is fully integrated into health equity and social justice efforts.

Citation: Swenor, B.K., Varadaraj, V., & Castro, F.F. (2025). The Role of Epidemiology in Addressing Ableism. Epidemiology, 36(1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001790

This article highlights how the fields of aging and disability have largely developed as separate areas of focus in digital technology design, despite overlapping experiences, needs, and risks. Existing guidelines and standards—such as web accessibility standards—have had limited impact due to insufficient scope, weak enforcement, and limited attention to variation within aging and disability communities or the structural effects of ableism and ageism.

These gaps are becoming more consequential as digital technologies grow more pervasive and complex, particularly in areas such as data privacy, artificial intelligence, and generative AI. Aging and disability are often experienced simultaneously and in diverse ways, creating shared technological needs that current design approaches do not adequately address.

The article also calls for joint efforts across aging and disability fields to strengthen standards, build political power, and prevent the exacerbation of existing harms. It emphasizes a shift away from deficit-based design toward approaches that recognize the assets, contexts, and full personhood of older adults and disabled people, and it outlines pathways toward more comprehensive and enforceable digital technology standards.

Citation: Barton, H.J., Valdez, R.S., Shew, A., Swenor, B.K., Jolliff, A., Claypool, H., Czaja, S.J., & Werner, N.E. (2025). A Call for Integrated Approaches in Digital Technology Design for Aging and Disability. Gerontologist, 65(6), gnaf113. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaf113

People with disabilities often experience discriminatory impacts when interacting with technologies used in employment, government benefits, and healthcare. For example, automated hiring tools may screen out applicants with disabilities by misinterpreting behaviors like “unusual eye movement” from blind or low-vision individuals. Benefits determination algorithms can reduce or deny essential home-based care hours. In healthcare, algorithmic tools influence decisions about discharge, pain management, and more—often producing biased outcomes that disproportionately harm disabled people, especially those who are multiply marginalized.

These harms are not only the result of opaque algorithms. Many stem from the data used to build them. Incomplete, inaccurate, or poorly collected disability data also weakens advocacy, policy development, funding decisions, and enforcement of disability civil rights laws. Reducing technology-driven disability discrimination requires addressing systemic problems in disability data collection and use.

This report identifies how disability datasets often exclude, miscount, or poorly represent disabled people, and offers recommendations grounded in a disability data justice approach, including:

• Disability data should be collected wherever other demographic data is collected.
• Data must be collected and stored with strong privacy protections.
• New, more inclusive ways of defining and measuring disability are needed.
• People with disabilities must be involved in designing, deploying, procuring, and auditing technologies.
• Disabled leaders and experts should shape technology and AI policy.
• Data systems and outputs must be accessible.

Significant changes in disability data practices are essential to building equitable technologies—and these changes are both possible and urgent.

Citation: Aboulafia, A., Bogen, M., & Swenor, B.K. (2024). To Reduce Disability Bias in Technology, Start With Disability Data. Center for Democracy & Technology.

This chapter explores how artificial intelligence (AI) and data systems can either reinforce or challenge ableism—the discrimination and exclusion of people with disabilities. Historically, data collection and AI technologies have often excluded or misrepresented disabled people, shaping systems that ignore their lived experiences. As AI becomes increasingly central to how decisions are made, these patterns risk being automated on a larger scale. 

The authors outline what more equitable futures could look like. They describe “achievable imaginaries”: realistic, disability-led visions where AI and data are used to promote inclusion, justice, and self-determination. By centering disabled voices and leadership, the chapter shows how data and AI can be redesigned to support—not harm—disabled communities. 

Citation: Newman-Griffis, D., Swenor, B.K., Valdez, R., & Mason, G. (2024). Disability Data Futures: Achievable Imaginaries for AI and Disability Data Justice. ArXiv Preprint, arXiv:2411.03885. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.03885

People with disabilities continue to experience discrimination and inequities in healthcare, and those inequities are increasingly shaped by digital systems—patient portals, telehealth platforms, remote monitoring, EHR access, and AI-enabled tools. This perspective argues that digital health can help advance disability health equity, but only if accessibility and disability inclusion are treated as foundational requirements—not optional features.

The article outlines four priority areas for action:

1. Universal Design and Inclusion: Require digital health tools to be built using universal design principles and codeveloped with disabled people, including compatibility with assistive technology and emergency response features.
2.  Standardized Disability Data Collection: Establish mandatory, standardized disability data collection in EHRs with strong privacy protections to improve care quality, personalization, and research. 
3.  Accessibility as Civil Rights: Treat accessibility as a civil rights issue and strengthen enforcement of existing protections (e.g., Section 508, ADA, and Section 1557), including consequences for noncompliance and mechanisms for patient recourse.
4.  Funding and Incentives: Invest in disability equity through incentives for accessible innovation, digital literacy programs, workforce training, and payment models that support disability-inclusive digital care. 

Overall, the piece frames digital health as a powerful lever for equity—but only if policy, data infrastructure, and technology design are aligned with disability rights and accountability

Citation: Jain, P., Jain, B., Doshi, R., Jain, U., Claypool, H., Aboulafia, A., & Swenor, B.K. (2025). Digital Health: An Opportunity to Advance Health Equity for People With Disabilities. Milbank Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.70049

This qualitative study examines the experiences of faculty and scientists with disabilities working at academic institutions in the United States. People with disabilities remain underrepresented in higher education and face “systematic obstacles such as inaccessible institutions and difficulties in obtaining accommodations.” Through 35 confidential semi-structured interviews with disabled research faculty and scientists, the study explored barriers to accessibility and disability inclusion across STEM and research environments. Themes that emerged included identity and visibility, career trajectories, accessibility, accommodations, bias, representation, and inclusion. Participants described hesitancy to disclose disabilities in the workplace or during hiring due to concerns about negative perceptions from peers or employers. Many reported experiences of stigma and bias, along with challenges when interacting with disability service offices, including “difficulties and delays in processes to secure accommodations.” Respondents also highlighted the “lack of disability inclusion and low representation of people with disabilities in academia,” emphasizing the importance of self-advocacy, role models, and mentors in shaping future career pathways. The authors conclude that faculty with disabilities encounter systematic barriers in academic institutions and that the lack of acknowledgement and research on these experiences has hindered institutional and policy change. They call on academic leadership to “allocate resources to address ableism, create more inclusive environments, and raise standards beyond ADA compliance.” 

Citation: Castro, F., Cerilli, C., Hu, L., Iezzoni, L., Varadaraj, V., & Swenor, B.K. (2024). Experiences of Faculty and Scientists with Disabilities at Academic Institutions in the United States. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.12.24302692 

People with disabilities remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), yet little research has examined how this affects salaries and career advancement. Analyzing data from the 2019 U.S. Survey of Doctorate Recipients, it was found that STEM doctorate recipients with early disabilities earned less per year than their non-disabled colleagues, and were underrepresented among higher faculty ranks, in leadership roles such as deans or presidents, and among those holding tenure. These results highlight persistent barriers that limit opportunities for disabled scientists in STEM. The study underscores the urgent need to expand inlusion effort, universities, improve working conditions, and ensure equal opportunities for career advancement across the academic pipeline. 

Citation: Castro, F., Stuart, E., Deal, J., Varadaraj, V., & Swenor, B.K. (2024). STEM Doctorate Recipients with Disabilities Experienced Early in Life Earn Lower Salaries and Are Underrepresented Among Higher Academic Positions. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01745-z

This New England Journal of Medicine perspective, co-authored by Dr. Swenor, emphasizes that disability must be recognized as a central component of research study diversity. The piece calls for disability inclusion in recruitment, study design, and reporting to ensure research findings reflect the full population. 

Citation: Swenor, B.K., & Deal, J.A. (2022). Disability Inclusion as a Key Component of Research Study Diversity. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2115475

Students with disabilities face many barriers in higher education, yet clear information about accessibility is often missing from university websites. This lack of transparency makes it harder for prospective students to evaluate whether schools can meet their access needs. To address this gap, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Disability Health Research Center created the University Disability Inclusion Dashboard, which scores universities on how well they share information about accessibility and disability inclusion. 

The findings from this work highlight the urgent need for universities of all types to improve disability inclusion. Transparent, accessible policies are essential to ensure equity in higher education. 

Explore the findings in action on the University Disability Inclusion Dashboard, an open-data platform built from this research. 

This article highlights substantial disparities in salary and representation among STEM doctorate recipients with disabilities, addressing a critical lack of population-level data on disabled scientists. Using nationally representative data from the 2019 Survey of Doctorate Recipients, the authors examine differences in earnings and academic advancement for scientists with disabilities experienced early in life compared to those without disabilities.

STEM doctorate recipients with early-onset disabilities earn significantly lower salaries than their non-disabled peers, with even larger disparities observed among those working in academic settings. It also documents pronounced underrepresentation of academics with disabilities in higher faculty ranks, leadership positions such as dean or president, and among those with tenure, pointing to systemic barriers to career advancement.

The article also calls for expanded inclusion efforts to address these inequities, emphasizing the need for equal opportunities for advancement and improved working conditions for people with disabilities in STEM. Together, the findings underscore how structural disadvantages continue to shape academic and professional outcomes for disabled scientists.

Citation: Castro, F., Stuart, E., Deal, J., Varadaraj, V., & Swenor, B.K. (2023). STEM Doctorate Recipients with Disabilities Experienced Early in Life Earn Lower Salaries and Are Underrepresented Among Higher Academic Positions. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01745-z

This article highlights the persistent and often overlooked barriers faced by researchers with disabilities in U.S. academic institutions. Through confidential qualitative interviews with researchers across disciplines, the study examines how structural ableism, inaccessible environments, and stigma shape career trajectories, disclosure decisions, and day-to-day work experiences in academia.

Researchers with disabilities navigate challenges related to disability visibility, accommodation access, and bias from peers, leadership, and institutional systems. Participants reported fear of disclosure, delays and burdens in securing accommodations, exclusion from diversity initiatives, and limited representation in academic spaces. These barriers often required significant self-advocacy and unpaid labor, contributing to stress, isolation, and in some cases, attrition from academia.

The article also emphasizes the importance of community, mentorship, and disability-led advocacy in countering these barriers, while underscoring the need for institutional change. The authors call on academic leadership to move beyond minimal ADA compliance by allocating resources to address ableism, centralize accommodation processes, and create more inclusive and supportive research environments for disabled scholars.

Citation: Castro, F., Cerilli, C., Hu, L., Iezzoni, L.I., Varadaraj, V., & Swenor, B.K. (2024). Experiences of Researchers with Disabilities at Academic Institutions in the United States. PLOS ONE, 19(8), e0299612. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299612.

This National Academies workshop series explores barriers and opportunities for people with disabilities in STEM fields. It highlights systemic challenges, strategies for inclusion, and recommendations to support the success of disabled students and professionals across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. By centering disability in workforce development, this work aims to foster equity, representation, and innovation in STEM.

Healthcare websites are often the first-place people go to make appointments or find care. But many hospital websites are not accessible to people who are blind or have low vision. In fact, only about 5% of hospitals meet accessibility standards. This creates major barriers to getting needed care. 

The RAMP Project, led by Dr. Iwashyna and Dr. Swenor, is creating a better way to measure and improve digital accessibility in healthcare. The RAMP Score evaluates how well academic medical center websites apply universal design principles—equitable use, flexibility, simple and intuitive use, and perceptibility—so that people with disabilities can more easily establish care. 

Improving the “virtual front door” to healthcare through universal design makes it easier for people with disabilities to access the care they need. By making accessibility measurable and actionable, RAMP supports real change in how hospitals serve patients with disabilities. 

 Supported by NIH Grant R01EY036670. 

This study examined healthcare access among U.S. adults by disability and race using 2019–2021 national survey data. Results showed that adults with disabilities were more likely to forgo care due to cost, even though they were generally more connected to healthcare providers and recent checkups than non-disabled adults. Racial and ethnic minority individuals with disabilities, particularly Hispanic adults, faced the greatest barriers to accessing care. The findings highlight ongoing disparities at the intersection of disability and race in healthcare access.

Citation: Choi, J., Castro, F., Swenor, B.K., & Varadaraj, V. (2025). Healthcare Access by Disability and Race Among United States Adults: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2019–2021. Disability and Health Journal, 18(4), 101908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101908.

This study examined barriers to healthcare access among U.S. adults with self-reported vision difficulty using 2019–2021 BRFSS data. Adults with vision difficulty were more likely to lack healthcare coverage, not have a regular provider, go more than a year without a checkup, and be unable to afford care compared with those without vision difficulty. These disparities highlight the impact of social determinants of health, accessibility challenges, and communication barriers. Policies that improve accessibility in healthcare settings could help reduce these inequities.

Citation: Onukwugha, C., Castro, F., Swenor, B.K., & Varadaraj, V. (2026). Disparities in Healthcare Access for Adults With Self-Reported Vision Difficulty: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2019–2021. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 33(1), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2024.2407905. 

This study examines how telehealth and digital health innovations affect access to healthcare in the U.S., particularly for marginalized populations. While telehealth offers opportunities to reach patients when in-person care is limited, inequities in broadband access, technology, and usability create barriers. The authors highlight the role of Digital Determinants of Health (DDoHs), including accessibility, infrastructure, and intersectional patient needs. Recommendations include designing technologies with accessibility in mind, supporting diverse users and settings, and creating clear paths to address system failures.

Citation: Phuong, J., Ordóñez, P., Cao, J., Moukheiber, M., Moukheiber, L., Caspi, A., Swenor, B.K., Naawu, D.K.N., & Mankoff, J. (2023). Telehealth and Digital Health Innovations: A Mixed Landscape of Access. PLOS Digital Health, 2(12), e0000401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000401