Abstract
Disability benefits function by demarcating categories of need (the administrative category of disability) and determine eligibility using assessments of functioning. In the UK, these assessments are the Work Capability Assessment and PIP assessment. Inherently technical and abstruse processes, these assessments have been opportune sites for welfare reform in recent years. Disability benefits have also been a central point of contention between disability studies and sociology. Sociology has traditionally favoured an ‘incomes approach’ and called for more adequate financial support from the state. Early figures in the disabled people’s movement rejected this position, and aligned with an oppression paradigm, argued for a more radical economic and social inclusion. We contend that this divide, set out in the Fundamental Principles of Disability, remains relevant for researching welfare reform today. This article treats benefits assessments as epistemic practices—interactional processes wherein claimants, their personal health professionals and commercial assessment providers come together in the production of knowledge about disability. Data include 50 in-depth interviews with benefit claimants and a discourse analysis of official texts directed at claimants, personal health professionals and commercial assessment providers. We outline a phenomenon we term ‘epistemic sabotage’, whereby the knowledge claims of claimants and their health professionals are systemically disqualified.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1164-1186 |
| Number of pages | 23 |
| Journal | Sociology of Health & Illness |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 18 Dec 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 20 Jul 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The analysis we put forward presents the lived experience of benefit claimants, but also considers the relationship between knowledge and power, and how systems of signification inscribe the body, lived experience and social processes with meaning (Howarth et al., 2016). This focus on the discursive construction of disability assessment is needed because of the fundamental role played by the state in defining disability as an administrative category (Stone, 1984). In doing so, we seek not only to describe lived experience, but to account for the experience of claimants by identifying structural barriers that cause exclusion (UPIAS, 1975). A range of empirical sources are drawn upon, including in-depth interviews with 50 disabled claimants of UC/ESA and PIP and analysis of official texts generated by the DWP and commercial assessment providers. These official texts include media targeted at three distinct constituencies; benefit claimants; members of the claimant’s own healthcare team; and commercial assessment providers. Interviews were conducted as part of a study funded by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC), which explored the impact of UK welfare reform on the lives of disabled people. The aim of this broader study was to understand how changes to disability benefits (including eligibility, rates of award, sanctions and conditionality) have been experienced by disabled people. Participants were sampled purposively based on their having received UC/ESA and/or PIP and were recruited through advertisements placed in user-led organisations and affiliate members of the DBC. Study participants were aged between 21 and 65 years (average age of 45) and included 25 men and 25 women. The sample included six British Asian participants, one White non-British participant, one mixed-race participant and 42 White British participants. The sample was diverse in terms of impairment types, including physical impairments, mental ill health, sensory impairments and learning disability. Participants were asked to define their impairment(s), and each quotation presented in the findings section is accompanied by a description in these terms. The focus of interviews necessarily involved topics that were sensitive and troubling for many participants. Several precautions were installed in order to minimise distress or limit any harm resulting from distress where it occurred. Prior to participation, all informants were provided with clear information about the focus of interviews, and all had the opportunity to ask questions before taking part. During interviews themselves, all members of research team made efforts to ensure that interviewees felt empowered, meaning participants understood that they were in control of what was discussed. Where participants expressed distress, they were reminded that the interview could be paused, terminated or that the topic of discussion could be changed. All participants (and particularly those who became distressed) were also signposted to information, support and advocacy (including welfare rights and user-led organisations). The host institution’s Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences research ethics committee provided ethical approval for the study (R205487). A mixture of face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted, and whilst each type of interview generated distinct data, the quality of interviews was assured by all interviewers having significant experience at the post-doctoral level. Interviews followed a topic guide that included questions about participants’ personal and financial circumstances and their experience accessing benefits. Each member of the research team conducted interviews, which were transcribed verbatim. Data storage, administration and analysis were conducted using QSR Nvivo 11. Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) provided the initial framework for analysing and coding interview transcripts, after which overarching categories were identified. This process resulted in a thematic analytic framework, which was reviewed within the research team. Following this, we analyse the discursive and spatial formulation of texts, including DWP and commercial assessment provider documents, forms and videos. The majority of texts included in our dataset are available in the public domain, with two accessed using freedom of information requests. Taken together, these texts represent the official guidance available to benefit claimants, members of the claimant’s own healthcare team, and commercial assessors. Our analysis of official texts follows Cooren’s (2004) textual agency, which perceives a hybrid association between humans and texts. This approach emphasises the organisational and performative role documents play in shaping social practices. For Cooren (2004), texts display a form of agency by doing things humans alone could not do: Created by human beings… texts participate in the channelling of behaviours, constitute and stabilize organizational pathways, and broadcast information/orders.(Cooren, 2004, p. 388) Created by human beings… texts participate in the channelling of behaviours, constitute and stabilize organizational pathways, and broadcast information/orders. Our focus upon the discursive and spatial arrangements of these texts allows an analysis of the way disability is constructed within the assessment process and the corresponding standards of evidence these constructs entail. In the following sections, we first present interview data and outline the experience of claimants as they source and present evidence in support of benefit claimants. We then analyse official texts directed at disabled claimants; claimants’ personal healthcare professionals; and commercial assessment providers. When applying for UC/ESA or PIP, benefit claimants typically provide additional information or medical evidence in support of their claim. Interview participants spoke extensively about this process, and many reported seeking letters of support from GPs or hospital doctors as well as official confirmations of medications, treatment plans and the like. However, despite frequently citing the importance of supporting evidence, few were clear as to what constituted effective evidence: Certainly getting a doctor’s letter for ESA was very important, but they don’t suggest things that you could put in(Ellie, 55-year-old woman, ME) Well they say provide as much evidence as possible but they don’t specify what evidence they need.(Joseph, 62-year-old man, epilepsy) Certainly getting a doctor’s letter for ESA was very important, but they don’t suggest things that you could put in Well they say provide as much evidence as possible but they don’t specify what evidence they need. There was a clear sense among many participants that official guidance concerning the sourcing and presentation of evidence was lacking. Informants reported being told not to request bespoke evidence from their GP or hospital specialist because the DWP or private assessment providers would source this information independently. Paul, a 52-year-old man with cerebral palsy, spoke of his uncertainty and frustration following this advice: The suggestion is that you don’t need to provide additional medical evidence to the DWP… they say “let us have anything you’ve got, but don’t go and search out anything new”… they say, “if we need evidence from medical professionals to support you, we will approach them, or we’ll let you know”.(Paul, 52-year-old man, cerebral palsy) The suggestion is that you don’t need to provide additional medical evidence to the DWP… they say “let us have anything you’ve got, but don’t go and search out anything new”… they say, “if we need evidence from medical professionals to support you, we will approach them, or we’ll let you know”. Many informants chose to ignore DWP guidance and instead sought supporting statements from members of their own healthcare team. For most, this represented hard work, which took a physical and emotional toll and often entailed financial costs in the form of administrative fees. Riya, a 45-year-old woman who is registered blind, spoke of the work involved in arranging evidence in support of her ESA claim: It was such a long-winded process … it’s not just filling in the form and sending it off, it’s also collecting evidence. I have to go to the GP, get a letter from the GP; have my eyes tested; get a letter from the optician. So there are a few other bits and pieces of evidence I have to submit and it involves a lot of running round.(Riya, 45-year-old woman, registered blind) It was such a long-winded process … it’s not just filling in the form and sending it off, it’s also collecting evidence. I have to go to the GP, get a letter from the GP; have my eyes tested; get a letter from the optician. So there are a few other bits and pieces of evidence I have to submit and it involves a lot of running round. Several participants reported difficulty securing evidence from own healthcare team, particularly evidence that explicitly addressed the criteria of assessments, such as their work capability: I’ve asked my neurologist for PIP last year and for ESA this year… I have been told I would need him to write a particular statement about it affecting my ability to get out and work… I didn’t quite know what he was going to do, but he agreed to help me as I was so desperate… they [health professionals] do not want to get involved with DWP… I can see that he’s tried to address it, but he wouldn’t actually write the sentence that I was asked to get him to write. It’s so specific though, it’s asking him to say that I cannot work.(Lisa, 48-year-old woman, chronic migraine; fibromyalgia; anxiety and depression) I’ve asked my neurologist for PIP last year and for ESA this year… I have been told I would need him to write a particular statement about it affecting my ability to get out and work… I didn’t quite know what he was going to do, but he agreed to help me as I was so desperate… they [health professionals] do not want to get involved with DWP… I can see that he’s tried to address it, but he wouldn’t actually write the sentence that I was asked to get him to write. It’s so specific though, it’s asking him to say that I cannot work. The prospect of securing supporting evidence was especially problematic for participants with fluctuating conditions, learning disability, mental illness, stigmatised conditions and medically unexplained symptoms. George, a 51-year-old man with a long-term neurological disorder, explained that the medically unexplained nature of his illness made it difficult to provide effective evidence: How can I produce evidence when you don’t even understand the disease? Or you’ve lied about my disease for years? Now they’re realising but what evidence can I produce? There’s no treatment for me.(George, 31-year-old man, neurological disorder) How can I produce evidence when you don’t even understand the disease? Or you’ve lied about my disease for years? Now they’re realising but what evidence can I produce? There’s no treatment for me. A more general criticism of medical evidence was its neglect of the functional aspects of disability. Harry, a 47-year-old man with multiple musculoskeletal conditions, stated clearly that medical evidence conceived of disability in narrow terms, meaning it was of limited use for his ESA claim: Medical reports do not put in anything about how a condition affects a person on a day-to-day basis… they’re writing medical reports based on blood tests, x-rays, MRIs… That’s all they do, that’s what their focus is on: what the condition is, what’s shown in the analysis and what’s in the treatment plan. It doesn’t say “Person A cannot walk 10 meters”. It never says that, that is not their focus.(Harry, 47-year-old man with multiple musculoskeletal conditions) Medical reports do not put in anything about how a condition affects a person on a day-to-day basis… they’re writing medical reports based on blood tests, x-rays, MRIs… That’s all they do, that’s what their focus is on: what the condition is, what’s shown in the analysis and what’s in the treatment plan. It doesn’t say “Person A cannot walk 10 meters”. It never says that, that is not their focus. The experiences outlined here mirror those reported in independent reviews of the WCA and PIP assessment (Gray, 2017; Litchfield, 2014), which have found guidance for claimants to be lacking. Claimants clearly recognise the importance of supporting evidence, but few understand what constitutes effective evidence. In the next section, we contextualise these findings by examining official guidance directed at claimants. Key to the functioning of the WCA and PIP assessment are official texts directed at distinct constituencies. These texts exert an organisational agency (Cooren, 2004) over different actors within the assessment process, shaping both the knowledge they produce and their evaluation of other epistemic agents. In this section, we introduce two texts directed at claimants and consider the constructs of disability they advance and the standards of evidence they involve. The first is a DWP Youtube video, which advises PIP claimants; the second is the UC50 (the work capability questionnaire) (Figure 1). Image from the DWP Youtube video entitled ‘Personal Independence Payment—providing information to support your claim’ (DWP, 2018). The following transcript is taken from the DWP’s Youtube channel and a video entitled ‘Personal Independence Payment—providing information to support your claim’ (DWP, 2018). After introducing the video, the male narrator addresses claimants in a calm and reassuring tone: You need to send us supporting information with your claim, to help us make a decision on your claim more quickly. Most people will need to attend a face-to-face assessment. Information relevant to your claim is really important to help us understand how your long-term health condition or disability (both mental and/or physical) affects you day-to-day. Send us the different types of information that you have, this doesn’t have to be medical details. Information from someone who supports you, like a nurse, social worker or carer is really helpful too.(DWP, 2018) You need to send us supporting information with your claim, to help us make a decision on your claim more quickly. Most people will need to attend a face-to-face assessment. Information relevant to your claim is really important to help us understand how your long-term health condition or disability (both mental and/or physical) affects you day-to-day. Send us the different types of information that you have, this doesn’t have to be medical details. Information from someone who supports you, like a nurse, social worker or carer is really helpful too. Three distinct messages are conveyed in this excerpt, which together encapsulate the way disability and standards of evidence are constructed within claimant-directed texts. First, whilst the video states clearly that most applicants will need to attend a face-to-face assessment, it also implies that the information claimants provide will play a central role in the DWP’s decision-making process. Second, disability is framed in everyday terms as the applicant’s lived experience and the effects of illness or impairment on ‘day-to-day’ life. Third, viewers are assured that the supporting information they provide need not be ‘medical details’, rather a more holistic notion of evidence is put forward. The same video then proceeds to detail what does, and does not, constitute ‘relevant’ supporting information: Here are some examples of relevant supporting information you should send in with your form, if you have them: social care plans; reports from health professionals; test results; statements from carers or family; prescription lists… You generally don’t need to send: appointment letters or cards; general information or factsheets about your condition or medication; and bus or train tickets to appointments you have attended.(DWP, 2018) Here are some examples of relevant supporting information you should send in with your form, if you have them: social care plans; reports from health professionals; test results; statements from carers or family; prescription lists… You generally don’t need to send: appointment letters or cards; general information or factsheets about your condition or medication; and bus or train tickets to appointments you have attended. Here, the inclusive notion of evidence is further advanced, with the testimony of claimants, their family members and carers are all identified as valid. Despite asserting the importance of claimant-sourced evidence, a reoccurring feature of texts directed towards claimants is the ambiguous, often contradictory, guidelines concerning the role and responsibility of claimants. The UC50 advises applicants about the provision of information in the following terms: Please tell us about your GP. If you don’t know your GP’s name, tell us the name of your doctor’s surgery. Sometimes we will need to contact them to ask for medical or other information that tells us how your disability, illness or health condition affect your ability to do things on a daily basis. We don’t always have to contact them, so it’s important that you send all of your medical or other information back with this questionnaire.(DWP, 2017b, p. 4) Please tell us about your GP. If you don’t know your GP’s name, tell us the name of your doctor’s surgery. Sometimes we will need to contact them to ask for medical or other information that tells us how your disability, illness or health condition affect your ability to do things on a daily basis. We don’t always have to contact them, so it’s important that you send all of your medical or other information back with this questionnaire. Claimants are told to provide the name of their GP, but the function of this information remains unclear as the document also states that GPs will only be contacted ‘sometimes’. Applicants are assured that the information they provide is important, and an inclusive conception of evidence is implied by the reference to claimants’ ‘ability to do things on a daily basis’—the same quotidian referents as the PIP guidance (above). Similar ambiguity concerning the role of claimants in sourcing evidence is also apparent in the PIP video (DWP, 2018), which instructs applicants to: Just send photocopies of what you already have. It’s your responsibility to send this to us, but please only send us copies of what you already have. Don’t contact your GP or health professional for new or additional information as they may charge you for this. If we need more information from your GP or other professionals involved in your care we will ask for it ourselves.(DWP, 2018) Just send photocopies of what you already have. It’s your responsibility to send this to us, but please only send us copies of what you already have. Don’t contact your GP or health professional for new or additional information as they may charge you for this. If we need more information from your GP or other professionals involved in your care we will ask for it ourselves. Claimants are told that it is their responsibility to provide supporting information, yet they are instructed not to request new evidence from their GP. Instead, claimants are advised to provide copies of unspecified existing information before being told that assessors will independently source evidence from the claimant’s healthcare team if needed. Such mixed messages can, understandably, lead to anxiety and confusion among claimants and are likely to explain the concerns of participants outlined in the interview data presented above. Ambiguity is found not just in relation to the responsibility of claimants, but also in terms of the nature of the evidence itself. Official guidance implies that the construct of disability under assessment is the lived body/mind, involving a correspondingly inclusive notion of evidence in which the testimony of claimants, their family members and carers are all considered credible. As we will demonstrate, these assertions fundamentally misrepresent the way disability is assessed. Once benefit claims are submitted, medical evidence may be requested from the claimant’s own healthcare team (typically their GP or hospital doctor). As outlined above, claimants are instructed by the DWP not to request this information themselves; instead, evidence from claimants’ own healthcare team is solicited on behalf of the DWP by private assessment providers using evidence pro formas. These pro formas and accompanying guidelines construct disability and standards of evidence that are distinct from those of the lived body/mind; we argue further that these texts employ techniques that limit the scope of health professionals to testify to the functional criterial of assessments—a contrived hermeneutical injustice. Below, we report on the UC/ESA evidence pro forma (DWP, 2016), the Capita PIP evidence pro forma (CAPITA, 2019) and the accompanying DWP guidebook for health professionals on completing factual reports (DWP, 2019). Figure 2 shows the first page of the UC/ESA evidence pro forma (DWP, 2016). This page contains a free-text table in which GPs are asked to report ‘details of those conditions that may have a significant effect on the person’s capacity to work’ (original emphasis). Importantly, no further guidance is given about what type of work this refers to or whether the hypothetical work in question involves an accessible workplace. ESA113 form (DWP, 2016), page 1 of 2 Despite the ambiguous nature of work and the workplace, the instruction to report the claimant’s capacity to work is emboldened. This arrangement calls for a definite response, yet the form gives no context about the accessibility of work or the workplace upon which to base such a firm judgement. A dissonance is promoted, therefore, between an ambiguous construct of work and the demand for certitude on the part of respondents. Without explicit examples upon which to base judgements of work capacity, it is possible to imagine accessible work environments, meaning work capacity becomes increasingly plausible for many. This arrangement is likely to promote equivocal responses. The subsequent free-text table contains three pre-defined columns: ‘Conditions and date of diagnoses’, ‘Symptoms and signs’, ‘Investigations and management, including medication’. This arrangement formulates disability as a clinical object—biomedically imagined and impairment focussed. Here again, context is absent, with no scope to indicate how diagnoses or impairments interact with particular employment settings or with claimants’ social or cultural circumstances. Disability—as the interaction between impairment and disabling barriers—is written out of the text. The following page of the ESA113 form (Figure 3) addresses functional aspects of disability through a series of vertically arranged tick-boxes. These boxes have an unclear relationship to the immediately adjacent free-text box, which asks respondents to ‘provide a brief explanation’. Whilst ostensibly giving opportunity to report functional disability, it is important to recognise that respondents may be less likely to complete a second free-text box in a comprehensive way, having already completed the preceding free-text table (page 1). The form makes no attempt to ground functional limitations in real-world examples, meaning again that the resulting testimony is likely to be inherently vague and will focus on impairment rather than functional disability. This reading is consistent with the accounts of interview participants above, who spoke about the limitations of medical evidence in precisely these terms. These same features are also apparent in the corresponding PIP evidence pro forma (CAPITA, 2019), which seemingly gives greater opportunity for statements of functional limitations or the ‘effects of the disabling condition(s) on day to day life’ (Figure 4). ESA113 form (DWP, 2016), page 2 of 2 Capita PIP Factual Report (CAPITA, 2019), page 6 of 11 However the accompanying DWP guidebook gives specific instructions for the completion of this question, stating: We are looking for facts, not opinion, with the date of the observation. If you would like to offer your opinion, please make sure it is supported by factual evidence.(DWP, 2019, p. 10) We are looking for facts, not opinion, with the date of the observation. If you would like to offer your opinion, please make sure it is supported by factual evidence. ‘Facts’ and ‘opinions’ are not neutral terms, both are implicated with the professional and ethical values of medicine, particularly for clinicians trained in evidence-based medicine, which gives primacy to randomised control trials and affords lowly status to expert opinion (Kerridge et al., 1998). This framing transforms respondents’ testimony into a moral exercise, as their statements of support risk being deemed unprofessional should they stray from fact into opinion. This discursive dynamic can only promote doubt and encourage circumspect responses. A more explicit factor in this arrangement is the requirement that ‘facts’ be accompanied with ‘the date of observation’. This requirement clearly precludes statements about functional limitations based on logical inferences alone. Instead, for statements to be valid, and ethical, they must be accompanied by empirical observations. Given that interactions between responding clinicians and claimants will typically occur in clinical settings, this requirement places clear limitations on the scope of the clinician’s testimony, at the direct expense of functional aspects of disability. In summary, evidence pro formas and accompanying guidance exert organisational agency over claimants’ personal health professionals. These texts encourage medicalised evidence that is impairment-focussed, whilst also seeking to limit testimony about disability as the functional interaction between impairment and environment. We explain the full implications of this arrangement in the following sections. The outsourcing of disability assessments to commercial assessment providers has been a central feature of welfare reforms (PIP assessments are conducted by Capita and Independent Assessment Services, i.e., ATOS; WCA by Health Assessment Advisory Services, i.e., Maximus). These commercial assessment providers are the third audience for official texts, which not only construct disability in markedly different ways but also actively undermine the evidence solicited from claimants and their personal health professionals. The WCA handbook (CHDA, 2020) sets out how assessors should regard the testimony provided by claimants’ own healthcare team: The primary role of the GP or hospital doctor is to diagnose and treat any medical conditions that the patient/claimant presents to them. Any information or medical report that the doctor provides to the DWP in relation to disability benefits is a purely secondary activity to his/her therapeutic role. A clinician does not routinely consider the functional restrictions or disabling effects of the medical conditions that they treat.(CHDA, 2020, p. 49) The primary role of the GP or hospital doctor is to diagnose and treat any medical conditions that the patient/claimant presents to them. Any information or medical report that the doctor provides to the DWP in relation to disability benefits is a purely secondary activity to his/her therapeutic role. A clinician does not routinely consider the functional restrictions or disabling effects of the medical conditions that they treat. This passage reveals the interplay between hermeneutical and testimonial injustice, as the credibility of personal health professionals is denigrated (testimonial injustice) for not adequately comprehending functional disability (hermeneutical injustice). Having limited the scope of claimants’ own health professionals to testify to the functional limitations of their patients, here the credibility of that testimony is undermined for being clinically focussed and not addressing disability. This is an act of epistemic sabotage. Private assessment providers are the only actors with full access to the hermeneutical resources needed to evidence disability effectively, and only their testimony is deemed credible by DWP decision-makers. The following excerpt is taken from a section of the WCA handbook addressing manual dexterity, and illustrates clearly that what constitutes effective evidence is directly at odds with the guidance issued to claimants and their healthcare teams. The WCA handbook outlines the following scheme of evidence in relation to manual dexterity: Physical examination In addition to the examination of the upper limbs as subsequently described, always inspect the hands carefully and document any evidence of ingrained dirt or callosities, indicating the possibility of some heavy domestic/manual work at some point in time(CHDA, 2020, p. 95) So called ‘informal observations’ You may have the opportunity to observe how the claimant handles tablet bottles, their expenses sheet or a repeat prescription. You may also observe them lifting objects such as a pen, handling a newspaper/book, handling a mobile phone, drinking from a bottle, etc. Fine movements may be observed if the claimant adjusts their spectacles or their hair, or scratches their head.(CHDA, 2020, p. 95) Legal boundaries An upper tribunal decision (DG v SSWP (ESA) [2014] UKUT 100 (AAC) has clarified that activity 5/M(d) can only apply if a claimant is unable to use both a keyboard and mouse. So if a claimant can use either a keyboard or a mouse with one hand, activity 5/M(d) will not apply. In the context of activity 5/M(d), only one hand is required to adequately operate a keyboard. The upper tribunal have dismissed claims that use of a keyboard requires the use of both hands.(CHDA, 2020, p. 95) Physical examination In addition to the examination of the upper limbs as subsequently described, always inspect the hands carefully and document any evidence of ingrained dirt or callosities, indicating the possibility of some heavy domestic/manual work at some point in time So called ‘informal observations’ You may have the opportunity to observe how the claimant handles tablet bottles, their expenses sheet or a repeat prescription. You may also observe them lifting objects such as a pen, handling a newspaper/book, handling a mobile phone, drinking from a bottle, etc. Fine movements may be observed if the claimant adjusts their spectacles or their hair, or scratches their head. Legal boundaries An upper tribunal decision (DG v SSWP (ESA) [2014] UKUT 100 (AAC) has clarified that activity 5/M(d) can only apply if a claimant is unable to use both a keyboard and mouse. So if a claimant can use either a keyboard or a mouse with one hand, activity 5/M(d) will not apply. In the context of activity 5/M(d), only one hand is required to adequately operate a keyboard. The upper tribunal have dismissed claims that use of a keyboard requires the use of both hands. This is the construct of disability assessed by the WCA and PIP assessments: administratively constructed, surreptitiously observed, and legally bound. It is a construct of disability accessible only to commercial assessment providers, and neither disabled claimants nor their personal health professionals may claim to know this body/mind in a credible way. The testimony of private assessors achieves credibility in a way no other testimony can because it is ostensibly functional (unlike claimants’ own healthcare team); true (supposedly unlike claimants); and legally permissible at the time assessments take place.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness.
Research Groups and Themes
- SPS Norah Fry Centre for Disability Studies