Scoping review reveals shared mobility barriers and reduced participation in people with non-visible disabilities, highlighting the need for people-centric transport design.
The accessibility and inclusivity of transport systems are critical to promoting health, equity, and participation, and require an understanding of the experiences and diverse needs of all users. Persons with disabilities, who are recognised as vulnerable road users, face elevated transport risks and increased challenges in navigating transport environments, often resulting in reduced accessibility and participation. Among them, individuals with non-visible disabilities experience compounded challenges, arising not only from the functional limitations of their impairments, but also from social and systemic obstacles due to the unseen nature of their conditions. Despite this, mobility studies specifically focusing on non-visible disabilities – conditions in which impairments are not outwardly apparent – remain limited and fragmented, often confined to condition-centric studies. This scoping review aims to identify the barriers and impacts experienced by individuals with non-visible disabilities when using transport systems, and to highlight key considerations for future interventions. Three non-visible disabilities – autism, dementia, and anxiety disorders – were selected to guide the literature search and analysis. Findings reveal the heterogeneity across the three selected conditions, along with common mobility barriers such as confusion and complexity in transport systems, and the overwhelming nature of the travel environment. Consequently, individuals across the three selected conditions often modify their travel behaviour and reduce social participation. The review identifies key principles for inclusive design, including people-centric planning, systemic integration of support and training, and an emphasis on actionable design changes to create accessible environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chloe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: