Disability Inclusion Needs More Than Good Intentions. Can Assistive Technology Help Close the Gap?

According to the UK Department for Work and Pensions, the disability employment gap stood at 29.7 percentage points between April and June 2025.

Between 2014 and 2024, disabled workers moved out of employment at an average annual rate of 10.1%, compared with 4.6% for non-disabled workers.

Disabled workers were also more likely to experience underemployment, low pay and fewer career opportunities.

These figures highlight an important distinction. Disability inclusion is not simply about helping people enter employment. It is also about creating the conditions that enable them to remain employed, contribute meaningfully and progress.

Someone may have the qualifications, experience and motivation to succeed in a role, yet encounter barriers associated with inaccessible working practices, inflexible schedules, inadequate adjustments or environments that do not accommodate fluctuating needs.

Addressing those barriers requires more than individual resilience.

Universities have made considerable progress in recognising disability and expanding support services. Nevertheless, access to support does not always translate into an equitable student experience.

In October 2025, the Office for Students published One Size Doesn't Fit All: Equality of Opportunity for Disabled Students. The report highlighted inequalities in disabled students' experiences and the importance of more personalised, coordinated support.

Assistive technology encompasses a wide range of products and services intended to support people's functioning, independence and participation. It can include physical equipment, communication aids and digital software that supports cognition, organisation and accessibility.

The 2022 WHO and UNICEF Global Report on Assistive Technology estimated that more than 2.5 billion people worldwide need at least one assistive product, while nearly one billion lack access. The report identified education, employment, wellbeing and social participation among the areas where assistive technology can make a meaningful difference.

There is also encouraging evidence in higher education. A systematic review by McNicholl and colleagues, published online in 2019 and in print in 2021, examined 26 studies investigating assistive technology among disabled university students.

The review also highlighted challenges associated with inadequate training, unsuitable devices, limited support and difficulties navigating multiple information sources.

One of the most important ideas in disability inclusion is that barriers often arise through the interaction between a person's needs and their environment.

Consider two employees performing the same role. One may work effectively in a busy, unpredictable environment. Another may perform equally well when they have advance notice of changes, opportunities to regulate sensory input or flexibility around periods of fatigue.

The difference is not necessarily ability. It may be the relationship between the individual, the task and the environment.

This is consistent with person–environment fit approaches, which examine how well environmental demands and available resources correspond with individual needs.

Rather than expecting every disabled person to adapt to a fixed system, organisations can identify and reduce unnecessary barriers. For people managing fluctuating conditions, the ability to recognise changing support needs may also be valuable.

Digital assistive tools could potentially help individuals identify patterns, communicate requirements and access practical strategies. But these tools should supplement, not replace, reasonable adjustments, accessible services and organisational accountability.

The market for digital wellbeing and productivity software has expanded substantially. Yet there is an important difference between helping someone complete more tasks and helping them participate more fully in education or employment.

These outcomes do not always translate neatly into conventional productivity metrics. An application may record increased engagement without improving someone’s actual experience. Equally, someone may use assistive technology relatively infrequently but derive substantial value when encountering a specific barrier.

This creates a challenge for designers, researchers and organisations.

Coji is assistive software designed to support disability inclusion in education and employment.

Our focus is on helping neurodivergent people and people living with chronic illness, mental health conditions and other disabilities better understand their needs, manage everyday barriers and access practical support.

Coji includes tools such as energy check-ins, Body Nudges, personalised neuro profiles, reflection and communication support. These features are designed around the idea that support should be responsive to individual circumstances rather than assuming everyone has the same capacity, needs or experiences.

For example, recognising patterns in energy or identifying barriers to particular activities may help someone better understand the support they need. Accessible prompts may help people engage with supportive routines, while communication tools may reduce some of the difficulties involved in expressing their needs.

These are promising applications of assistive technology principles. However, we also recognise an important limitation.

We cannot assume that a feature improves educational outcomes, employment retention or wellbeing simply because it was designed with those intentions. That is why user experiences, accessibility testing and measurable outcomes are essential to Coji's development.

For universities and employers, traditional indicators such as retention, absence and academic performance remain important. But they provide only part of the picture.

These measures should be considered alongside actual outcomes and the experiences of people who stop using a service. Self-reported improvements can provide useful early evidence, but they cannot establish causation on their own.

Small pilot studies can help identify feasibility, usability and potential benefits. Larger, appropriately designed evaluations are needed to determine whether an intervention produces meaningful improvements.

Crucially, disabled people should help determine which outcomes matter. An organisation's definition of success may not fully capture the outcomes that individuals themselves value.

Disability inclusion is often discussed as a matter of equality, social responsibility and legal obligation. These remain essential reasons to improve accessibility. But there is also an economic dimension.

Barriers to education can affect opportunities to develop qualifications and skills. Barriers to employment can limit earnings, career progression and financial independence.

Assistive technology that meaningfully improves access and participation may contribute to better long-term opportunities. However, these benefits should not be assumed for any individual product without evidence.

It is also important to recognise that disabled people should not bear sole responsibility for overcoming inaccessible systems. Employers, education providers, policymakers and technology developers all have roles to play.

One potentially valuable approach is for institutions to fund assistive support that individuals can access without an additional financial burden. In this model, the organisation invests in inclusion, while the person receives practical support.

For organisations, the value would need to be established through credible evidence of improved experiences, accessibility and outcomes.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that effective inclusion cannot be designed entirely from the outside.

People with lived experience understand barriers that may be invisible to those who have never encountered them. They can identify when technology creates unnecessary cognitive demands, when accessibility features are missing or when a seemingly simple process becomes difficult to complete.

Their experiences should inform product design, research priorities and decisions about what meaningful outcomes look like.

Participation should also be accessible. That might mean offering different ways to provide feedback, accommodating fluctuating energy, avoiding unnecessary disclosure and compensating people fairly when they contribute to formal research.

At Coji, we want people with lived experience to help shape the future of assistive technology, not simply receive technology developed on their behalf.

The evidence points towards a compelling opportunity. Disabled people continue to experience inequalities in employment, education and access to support.

Assistive technology can contribute to addressing these barriers, particularly when it is accessible, appropriately supported and responsive to individual needs. But technology is only one part of the solution.

Inclusive institutions must also examine their environments, expectations, policies and practices.

For assistive software developers, the responsibility is to move beyond claims of empowerment and demonstrate whether their products improve people's experiences.

For universities and employers, the opportunity is to evaluate support based on participation and accessibility, not only compliance or conventional performance metrics.

And for disabled people, meaningful inclusion should mean having greater choice, autonomy and opportunities to participate on equitable terms.

Coji is assistive software designed to support disability inclusion in education and employment.

We are developing practical, personalised tools to support neurodivergent people and those living with disabilities, chronic illnesses and mental health conditions.

We welcome collaboration with disabled people, researchers, universities, employers and community organisations interested in improving accessibility and meaningful participation.