Multidisciplinary perspectives on digital healthcare for people with disabilities: a qualitative study using a role-centered matrix approach

People with disabilities experience poorer health outcomes than the general population, much of which is attributed to how services are configured rather than to impairment itself. Digital healthcare may help reconfigure service delivery, but its benefits cannot be assumed to translate directly to this population. Little is known about how professionals involved in delivering such services perceive their roles and feasible forms of collaboration, particularly across different disciplines. This qualitative interview study involved 20 professionals who took part in semi-structured interviews between February and April 2025. The participants represented five fields: medicine, nursing, and clinical psychology; rehabilitation therapy; physical activity and health promotion; social welfare; and health information and assistive technology. Participants had at least 10 years of experience in providing services to people with disabilities. Ten service domains identified through a preparatory literature review formed the 10 questions of the interview guide and the columns of a role-centered matrix, with professional roles forming the rows. Transcripts were analyzed using the framework method, with the matrix used for charting. People with disabilities were not involved as participants, advisers, or members of the research team. Participants broadly agreed on the types of information the service should contain and identified public health centers and disability welfare centers as key delivery settings. However, they differed on who should hold the record and the extent to which access should be provided, ranging from public health centers alone to private institutions providing services. A recurring division concerned whether the provision should be designed specifically for people with disabilities or incorporated into systems serving the broader population. Within this panel, these positions were largely consistent with the information needs and perspectives of each discipline and with the settings in which the professionals worked. The findings provide an expert-derived conceptual model rather than a definitive service specification. Two unresolved issues are particularly important for the intended users: accommodating variation within the population and exercising access rights when capacity to consent is in question. Validation and co-design with people with lived experience of disability are necessary next steps.