This systematic review examines the methodological concerns that emerge in qualitative research on violence against women with disabilities. Based on PRISMA guidelines, using JBI critical appraisal instruments, 20 published qualitative studies between 2000 and 2023 were included based on predefined inclusion criteria. Included studies were those involving women with different types of disabilities and examining their lived experiences of interpersonal violence. Systematic searches of six electronic databases were used to identify studies and supplemented by citation tracking. The review emphasized the most significant methodological issues like barriers to participant recruitment, ethical difficulties in obtaining informed consent, underreported practices in facilitating accessibility, and limited reflexivity of researchers. Challenges particular to the intersection of disability and gender were also mentioned, including communication barriers, exclusion based on severity of impairment, and underrepresentation of participants from non-Western or minoritized groups. The results underscore the value of participatory and inclusive research designs and point to key gaps in the field. The review provides implications for research, policy, and practice in the future to enhance the participation and visibility of women with disabilities in violence research.
AbdelnourS.Abu MoghliM. (2021). Researching violent contexts: A call for political reflexivity. Organization. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211030646
2.
AlhusenJ. L.BloomT.AndersonJ.HughesR. B. (2020). Intimate partner violence, reproductive coercion, and unintended pregnancy in women with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 13(2), 100849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100849
3.
AlvermannD. E.MallozziC. A. (2010). Interpretive research. In McGill-FranzenA.AllingtonR. L. (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 488–496). Routledge.
4.
AnchaC. J. R. (2022). Gender and disability: The experiences of microaggressions against women with disabilities in the Philippines. The European Journal of Development Research, 34(6), 2688–2707. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-021-00483-0
5.
AromatarisE.LockwoodC.PorrittK.PillaB.JordanZ. (Eds.). (2024). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
6.
BarileM. (2002). Individual-systemic violence: Disabled women’s standpoint. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 4(1), 1–14.
7.
BaronH.YoungL. E. (2022). From principles to practice: Methods to increase the transparency of research ethics in violent contexts. Political Science Research and Methods, 10, 840–847. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.48
8.
BeneteauE. (2020). Who are you asking?: Qualitative methods for involving AAC users as primary research participants. In proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376883
9.
BhattacharyaA. (2022). “The day I die is the day I will find my peace”: Narratives of family, marriage, and violence among women living with serious mental illness in India. Violence Against Women, 28(3–4), 966–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211012089
10.
BhattacharyaK. (2016). The vulnerable academic: Personal narratives and strategic de/colonizing of academic structures. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(5), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004156156
11.
BonomiA.NicholsE.KammesR.ChuganiC. D.De GennaN. M.JonesK.MillerE. (2018). Alcohol use, mental health disability, and violence victimization in college women: Exploring connections. Violence Against Women, 24(11), 1314–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218787924
12.
BonomiA.NicholsE.KammesR.GreenT. (2018). Sexual violence and intimate partner violence in college women with a mental health and/or behavior disability. Journal of Women’s Health, 27(3), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6279
13.
BoothS. (1999). Researching health and homelessness: Methodological challenges for researchers working with a vulnerable, hard-to-reach, transient population. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 5(3), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY99037
14.
BoothT.BoothW. (1996). Sounds of silence: Narrative research with inarticulate subjects. Disability & Society, 11(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599650023326
15.
BreckenridgeJ. P.DevaneyJ.DuncanF.KrollT.LazenbattA.TaylorJ.Bradbury-JonesC. (2017). Conducting sensitive research with disabled women who experience domestic abuse during pregnancy: Lessons from a qualitative study. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473989139
16.
BreidingM. J.ArmourB. S. (2015). The association between disability and intimate partner violence in the United States. Annals of Epidemiology, 25(6), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.03.017
17.
BrodeurM.SchwartzA.McDonaldK. (2025). A scoping review of the ways gatekeepers may hinder or promote opportunities for people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities to learn about research participation. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 69(5), 329–344.
18.
BrownS. C. (2001). Methodological paradigms that shape disability research. In AlbrechtG. L.SeelmanK. DBuryM. (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 145–170). Sage.
19.
CareyE.GriffithsC. (2017). Recruitment and consent of adults with intellectual disabilities in a classic grounded theory research study: Ethical and methodological considerations. Disability & Society, 32(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1281793
20.
ChouY. C.LuZ. Y. (2011). Deciding about sterilisation: Perspectives from women with an intellectual disability and their families in Taiwan. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01347.x
21.
CodinaM.Díaz-FaesD.PeredaN. (2024). Better at home or in residential care? Victimization of people with intellectual disabilities at the hands of caregivers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 146, 104689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2024.104689
22.
CollingsS.GraceR.LlewellynG. (2016). Negotiating with gatekeepers in research with disadvantaged children: A case study of children of mothers with intellectual disability. Children & Society, 30(6), 499–509.
23.
CopelL. C. (2006). Partner abuse in physically disabled women: A proposed model for understanding intimate partner violence. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 42(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6163.2006.00059.x
24.
CrenshawK. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
25.
Cronin-FurmanK.LakeM. (2018). Ethics abroad: Fieldwork in fragile and violent contexts. Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 607–614.
26.
DeanL.TolhurstR.KhannaR.JehanK. (2017). “You’re disabled, why did you have sex in the first place?” An intersectional analysis of experiences of disabled women with regard to their sexual and reproductive health and rights in Gujarat State, India. Global Health Action, 10(2), 1290316. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1290316
EllisL. (2017). Making decisions together? Exploring the decision-making process in an inclusive research project. Disability & Society, 33(3), 454–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1392932
FengeL. A.OakleyL.TaylorB.BeerS. (2019). The impact of sensitive research on the researcher: Preparedness and positionality. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919893161
32.
FlanaganS. M.HancockB. (2010). “Reaching the hard to reach”—Lessons learned from the VCS (voluntary and community sector): A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 10, 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-92
33.
Garland-ThomsonR. (2001). Re-shaping, re-thinking, re-defining: Feminist disability studies. Barbara Waxman Fiduccia Papers on Women and Girls with Disabilities, Center for Women Policy Studies.
34.
GelinasL.WhiteS. A.BiererB. E. (2020). Economic vulnerability and payment for research participation. Clinical Trials, 17(3), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774519896342
35.
GoodleyD. (2011). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Sage.
JaffeA. E.DiLilloD.HoffmanL.HaikalisM.DykstraR. E. (2015). Does it hurt to ask? A meta-analysis of participant reactions to trauma research. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.004
40.
LedinghamE.WrightG. W.MitraM. (2022). Sexual violence against women with disabilities: Experiences with force and lifetime risk. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 62(6), 895–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.12.015
41.
Lee-TreweekG.LinkogleS. (2000). Putting danger in the frame. In Lee-TreweekG.LinkogleS. (Eds.), Danger in the field: Risk and ethics in social research (pp. 8–25). Routledge.
42.
LeeR. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. Sage Publications, Inc.
43.
LiamputtongP. (2008). Doing research in a cross-cultural context: Methodological and ethical challenges. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research (Social Indicators Research Series, Vol. 34, pp. 3–20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8567-3_1
44.
LockwoodC.MunnZ.PorrittK. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062
45.
ŁuczajK. (2024). Terapeutyczny wymiar wywiadu socjologicznego. Praktyka badawcza w kontekście wyzwań etycznych [The therapeutic dimension of sociological interviewing: Research practice in the context of ethical challenges]. Studia Socjologiczne, 1(252), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.24425/sts.2024.149317
46.
Mailhot AmborskiA.BussièresE. L.Vaillancourt-MorelM. P.JoyalC. C. (2022). Sexual violence against persons with disabilities: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(4), 1330–1343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838021995975
47.
MallonS.ElliottI. (2022). What is “sensitive” about sensitive research? The sensitive researchers’ perspective. In E. Borgstrom, S. Mallon & S. Murphy (Eds.) Unpacking sensitive research. Epistemological and metodological implications (pp. 9–21). Routledge.
48.
McClinton AppollisT.LundC.de VriesP. J.MathewsC. (2015). Adolescents’ and adults’ experiences of being surveyed about violence and abuse: A systematic review of harms, benefits, and regrets. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), e31–e45. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302788
49.
McConnellD.PhelanS. K. (2022). Intimate partner violence against women with intellectual disability: A relational framework for inclusive, trauma-informed social services. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30(6), e5156–e5166. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13932
50.
McCullochJ.MaherJ.WalklateS.McGowanJ.Fitz-GibbonK. (2021). Justice perspectives of women with disability: An Australian story. International Review of Victimology, 27(2), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758020906270
51.
McGillowayC.SmithD.GalvinR. (2020). Barriers faced by adults with intellectual disabilities who experience sexual assault: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 33(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12445
52.
MorganM.CuskellyM.MoniK. (2014). Unanticipated ethical issues in a participatory research project with individuals with intellectual disability. Disability & Society, 29(8), 1305–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.934440
53.
MoriñaA. (2021). When people matter: The ethics of qualitative research in the health and social sciences. Health & Social Care in the Community, 29(5), 1559–1565.
54.
MusterC. L. (2021). The silenced voices of hidden survivors: Addressing intimate partner violence among women with disabilities through a combined theoretical approach. Affilia, 36(2), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109920944555
NewtonV. L. (2017). “It’s good to be able to talk”: An exploration of the complexities of participant and researcher relationships when conducting sensitive research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 61, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2016.11.011
57.
OrtolevaS.LewisH. (2012). Forgotten sisters—A report on violence against women with disabilities: An overview of its nature, scope, causes and consequences. Violence Against Women with Disabilities Working Group. https://womenenabled.org/reports/ortoleva-lewis-forgotten-sisters/
PalliseraM. (2019). The control of access to participants as a form of protection and self-protection: A challenge for researchers—A response to Williams. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(1), 19–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1687558
60.
PeckhamN. G.CorbettA.HowlettS.McKeeA.PattisonS. (2007). The delivery of a survivors’ group for learning disabled women with significant learning disabilities who have been sexually abused. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2006.00426.x
61.
PhillipsD. (2007). Embodied narratives: Control, regulation and bodily resistance in the life course of older women with learning difficulties. European Review of History, 14(4), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/13507480701752151
62.
PoreddiV.ReddyS.GandhiS.BadaMathS. (2021). “Unheard voices”: Perceptions of women with mental illness on nurses screening routinely for domestic violence: A qualitative analysis. Investigación y Educación en Enfermería, 39(3), e03. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v39n3e03
63.
RaniA.HassanF. U. (2020). Suffering in silence: Stories of Indian women with chronic mental illness and sexual coercion. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(2), 168–174. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_296_19
64.
RóżyńskaJ. (2022). The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 25, 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-022-10092-1
65.
Santinele MartinoA. (2023). Ethically important moments: Researching the intimate lives of adults labeled/with intellectual disabilities. Qualitative Research, 23(6), 1800–1809. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221110179
66.
SaxtonM.CurryM. A.PowersL. E.MaleyS.EckelsK.GrossJ. (2001). “Bring my scooter so I can leave you”: A study of disabled women handling abuse by personal assistance providers. Violence Against Women, 7(4), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010122182523
ShaghaghiA.BhopalR. S.SheikhA. (2011). Approaches to recruiting “hard-to-reach” populations into research: A review of the literature. Health Promotion Perspectives, 1(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.5681/hpp.2011.009
69.
SherryE. (2013). The vulnerable researcher: Facing the challenges of sensitive research. Qualitative Research Journal, 13(3), 278–288.
70.
SilverioS. A.SheenK. S.BramanteA.KnightingK.KoopsT. U.MontgomeryE.NovemberL.SoulsbyL. K.StevensonJ. H.WatkinsM.EasterA.SandallJ. (2022). Sensitive, challenging, and difficult topics: Experiences and practical considerations for qualitative researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 16094069221124739.
SzeliΈ.PallaskaD. (2004). Violence against women with mental disabilities: The invisible victims in CEE/NIS countries. Feminist Review, 76(1), 117–119. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fr.9400134
VaughanC.DevineA.IgnacioR.LacsamanaW.MarcoM. J.ZayasJ.SobritcheaC. (2016). Building capacity for a disability-inclusive response to violence against women and girls: Experiences from the W-DARE project in the Philippines. Gender & Development, 24(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1194031
77.
WalshM.HarmanI.ManningP.PonzaB.WongS.ShawB.SellwoodD.AndersonK.ReddihoughD.WallenM. (2024). Including people who use augmentative and alternative communication in qualitative research: Can you hear us?International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241234190
78.
WillottS.BadgerW.EvansV. (2020). People with an intellectual disability: Underreporting sexual violence. The Journal of Adult Protection, 22(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-10-2019-00324.5
79.
WoodE. J. (2006). The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 373–386.
YoungL. E. (2019). The psychology of state repression: Fear and dissent decisions in Zimbabwe. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541800068X
82.
ZaviršekD. (2002). Pictures and silences: Memories of sexual abuse of disabled people. International Journal of Social Welfare, 11(4), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2397.00237
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
