Cross-sectional analysis compares mental healthcare access in individuals with and without disabilities, highlighting implications for digital tools.
Disability is an increasingly prevalent issue in the United States, which affects over 67 million people. Poor mental health in individuals with disabilities is common; however, access to traditional modes of mental healthcare remains a challenge. This study aims to compare use of traditional and online mental healthcare services between people with and without disabilities. This study used a cross-sectional sample of adults aged 18 years and older ( n = 44,096) from the 2019–2020 California Health Interview Survey. Mental healthcare access in-person and online, or use of digital technologies for mental healthcare were compared between several disability groups to individuals without disabilities. 15.3% of those in this sample reported being in one of the five reported disability groups: cognition, independent-living, seeing/hearing, self-care or multiple. Individuals with disabilities were 2.80 times more likely to access mental healthcare in-person compared to those without disabilities. Several disability groups had increased odds of accessing mental healthcare online, using online technologies for referrals to mental health professionals and connecting to others with a similar condition online. People with disabilities readily access mental healthcare, in-person and online, and use technologies for broader mental healthcare needs. This study highlights the importance of centering accessibility within health technologies. • Individuals with disability readily access mental healthcare, in-person and online. • Differences in accessing mental healthcare between sociodemographics were similar for those with and without disabilities. • Technologies are used to support mental healthcare through treatment as well as referrals and peer support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bevens et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: