Next Article in Journal
Beyond Unearned Income: The Contribution of Rural Youth to Earned Household Income in the Free State Province of South Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Descriptive Study on State and Trait Anxiety Levels in University Students and Their Potential Influencing Factors
Previous Article in Special Issue
‘Finding My Tribe’—The Mixed Blessing of Neoliberal Parenting Programmes for Parents of Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Societies
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/soc15100288
societies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cultural Participation as a Pathway to Social Inclusion: A Systematic Review and Youth Perspectives on Disability and Engagement

by
Sara Sáez-Velasco
*,
Abel Merino-Orozco
,
Cristina Di Giusto-Valle
,
Elvira Mercado-Val
,
Gloria Pérez De Albéniz-Garrote
,
Vanesa Delgado-Benito
and
Begoña Medina-Gómez
Department of Education Sciences, Faculty of Education, University of Burgos, 09001 Burgos, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies 2025, 15(10), 288; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15100288
Submission received: 21 July 2025 / Revised: 14 September 2025 / Accepted: 14 October 2025 / Published: 16 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Critical Disability Studies, a Social Theory and Praxis Supporting Changes in Socio-Political Conditions of Social Exclusion of People with Disabilities)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Social inclusion, particularly in the cultural domain, is a fundamental pillar for ensuring the full participation of all individuals in community life, fostering equity, well-being, and the recognition of diversity. This article has two objectives. Firstly, it aims to conduct a systematic review to diagnose the factors that exclude vulnerable groups from cultural access. Secondly, the aim is to understand how a group of young people with disabilities perceive the role of culture as a tool for social and labour inclusion. In October 2023, a systematic review was conducted in the Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases. A total of 37 articles were included in the review and classified into the following five areas of interest. The categories were as follows: (1) the relationship between cultural participation and physical and emotional well-being; (2) universal accessibility as a right to guarantee equitable access to culture; (3) the ability of people with disabilities to participate in culture; (4) the role of cultural policies as facilitators or barriers to inclusion; and (5) participation in contexts of cultural diversity as a means of social integration. These categories guided discussions with two focus groups comprising 15 young people. The positive impact of cultural participation, especially in its social dimension, was highlighted. The data point to the value of technology as a facilitator of access to culture, particularly for young people. Policies should focus on diverse cultural expressions and promote cognitive accessibility.

1. Introduction

Social inclusion is the process by which people gain access to the resources, relationships and opportunities that allow them to participate fully in the social, economic, political, and cultural life of their community. This enables them to overcome situations of marginalisation and exclusion [1,2]. The concept of ‘culture’ is complex and multifaceted [3]. According to the European Parliament’s Research Service, it can be understood as a multidimensional phenomenon integrating creative expression, the consumption of others’ work, the development of creative skills, and the acquisition of critical competencies for cultural decision-making [4]. In a cultural context, social inclusion means ensuring that everyone has the right to participate in cultural life, enjoy its expressions and actively contribute to its creation, regardless of their origin, circumstances or abilities [5]. Indeed, participation in cultural activities can act as a protective factor against exclusion, fostering resilience, psychosocial well-being, and self-esteem development [6]. Accordingly, access to culture is an essential element in the free development of all citizens’ personalities [7].
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [8] establishes that states parties must adopt appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the physical environment, transportation, information and communications on an equal basis with others. These measures also include access to culture. In the case of people with disabilities, cultural participation has evolved towards a vindication of culture and art, becoming cultural creators through various expressive modes (literature, cinema, “freak show” etc.) and giving visibility to previously marginalised voices [9]. However, despite efforts to promote measures aimed at increasing accessibility in cultural spaces and services, numerous barriers still prevent social inclusion with regard to access to education and culture [10]. Cultural exclusion of persons with disabilities remains a structural form of invisibility linked to a lack of representation and participation in cultural spaces.
Some authors suggest that, although research on cultural participation among people with disabilities has increased, it remains scarce [11]. Official data from the European Union (EU) for 2024 highlights the extent of social exclusion in relation to access to culture. Specifically, it is estimated that 21% of people in the EU are at risk of poverty or social exclusion [12]. The Survey on Disability, Personal Autonomy, and Dependency Situations revealed that in 2008, 17.96% of people with disabilities in Spain had experienced discrimination when participating in cultural, leisure or entertainment activities [13]. The same report states that 25.74% of these individuals have experienced discrimination in social situations. In this context, cultural participation should be understood as both a fundamental right and an essential mechanism for social inclusion and empowerment, particularly for people with disabilities. To be truly involved in dominant social structures and ensure that culture is not a platform for social oppression, people with disabilities must move away from being passive recipients. This involves legitimising their narratives and allowing them to play a leading role in cultural construction [14]. In academia, including people with disabilities in research processes is a significant step towards epistemological justice and methodological transformation.
Traditionally, the medical-individual model [15] has treated people with disabilities as objects of observation, analysis and evaluation without taking their perspectives or personal experiences into account [16]. However, the influence of the principle of normalisation and the transition from the medical model to the social model during the 1980s and 1990s led to a substantial transformation in the conception of intellectual disability. This promoted a new paradigm that encouraged the active participation of people with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) in research processes [17] and involved them in decision-making about their lives and support systems [18].
In this sense, focus groups are a relevant research technique that enables people with ID to participate directly [19]. They provide a non-intimidating discussion environment that helps participants gain confidence and receive support from others, while enabling the comparison of voices and experiences. Additionally, they enable individuals with limited literacy skills to actively participate in research processes [15].
This study has two objectives. Firstly, we will conduct a systematic review of social inclusion in access to culture to understand which groups are most at risk of social exclusion, which factors are related to exclusion in access to culture and to identify good practices that promote social inclusion in this area. Secondly, based on the literature review, we will seek to understand how culture is perceived as a tool for social and labour inclusion by a group of young disabled people participating in a training programme to become cultural agents in a university setting.
The information obtained from analysing literature on social inclusion in cultural access can be contrasted with the actual situation of people in discussion groups, and can inform the planning and implementation of policies and programmes that promote social inclusion in this area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The work takes the form of a case study [20] incorporating two methodological strategies: a systematic review [21] and two focus groups [22,23]. The systematic review contributes to the development of knowledge and analysis of the case study, while the focus groups help to identify the key aspects of the experience of people with disabilities with culture. The study is primarily based on a systematic literature review to synthesise existing knowledge, critically evaluate various perspectives and identify opportunities and challenges related to cultural inclusion for intellectually and socially vulnerable groups. The systematic review adopts the criteria established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, which is internationally recognised as the standard for preparing and presenting systematic reviews in the social and health sciences [24].
Subsequently, based on the emerging qualitative bibliographic analysis, two discussion groups were formed to clarify and delve deeper into the meanings and interpretations of culture and the opportunities it offers as a means of inclusion. Therefore, participants were deliberately selected to include university students with disabilities who participate in a professional training programme as cultural agents. There is a consolidated socio-educational relationship between these students and the researchers, and a shared training field [25].

2.2. Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Burgos in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines. The researchers obtained written informed consent from the participants before they took part in the study. To protect the confidentiality of the participants, they were all given unique identifiers in the focus group transcripts.

2.3. Participants

The study comprises 15 students (9 women and 6 men) aged between 18 and 30. This is a non-probability sampling in which the participating were selected for being part of a training programme for cultural agents at the Faculty of Education at the University of Burgos. Therefore, it is a convenience sampling. The programme forms part of an Erasmus+ project running from 2023 to 2025, with the aim of promoting social inclusion and encouraging the active participation of vulnerable groups in cultural activities. All participants are affiliated with a social entity in the city of Burgos (Spain) and have a recognised disability of some kind. Most participants have an ID, although there is also one person with a physical disability and one deaf person. All participants have oral communication skills except the deaf participant, who attends sessions with a Spanish sign language interpreter.

2.4. Data Collection and Management

2.4.1. Phase 1: Systematic Review

Articles were searched for and collected in October 2023 using the Web of Science and Scopus databases, in line with prior agreements to narrow down the search. It was agreed that parallel searches would be carried out in both databases: ‘social inclusion’ OR ‘social integration’ OR ‘community inclusion’ OR ‘social participation’ AND ‘cultural accessibility’ OR ‘cultural inclusivity’ OR ‘cultural inclusiveness’ OR ‘cultural participation’. As shown in Figure 1, this extensive search yielded 109 records.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied as agreed by the three reviewers [26]. Specific filters were applied based on defined areas of research. Only studies published in English, Portuguese or Spanish were considered. Only works published in open access or available through institutional databases have been included, and duplicate articles have been excluded to avoid redundancy. Additionally, the search was limited to articles and reviews. This resulted in a collection of 37 unique works, each of which underwent a thorough selection process during the eligibility phase to assess alignment with the pre-established inclusion criteria based on Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) [27]. It should be noted that all of the records successfully passed this stage, as the purpose of the systematic review is exploratory and aims to incorporate all experiences of social inclusion linked to culture. The scarcity of literature indicates a niche for scientific exploration.

2.4.2. Phase 2: Areas of Interest and Focus Groups

As the number of participants on the training course was too high to form a single focus group, the participants were divided into two random groups. Both groups met simultaneously, with eight and seven young people, respectively, and followed the same script. Two professionals assigned to the project attended each group as moderators. The two groups held an initial meeting in early 2024 in separate classrooms at the Faculty of Education of the University of Burgos. Participants were reminded at the beginning that they were being recorded and asked to respect the speaking order. One moderator facilitated the conversation while the other took notes. Interactions from the fieldwork were recorded during the sessions and expanded upon with interpretive notes in the field diary [28]. Concurrent and cyclical analysis of the training dynamics [29]. enables the creation of a final focus group script that interprets the observations. The literature analysis in the systematic review reveals emerging core areas of interest, enabling the focus group script to be structured around predominantly open-ended questions [29]. These core areas of interest are: (1) the relationship between cultural participation and physical and emotional well-being; (2) universal accessibility as a right to guarantee equitable access to culture; (3) the ability of disabled people to participate in culture; (4) the role of cultural policies in facilitating or hindering inclusion; and (5) participation in contexts of cultural diversity as a means of social integration.

2.5. Data Analysis

A reflective thematic analysis is carried out to process the articles selected in the literature review, grouping the works into various content categories. These categories are configured into a script that structures focus group conversations and serves as a nucleus of interest when structuring discussion groups. This script is shared with participants [30]. For focus groups, qualitative analysis was chosen as it enables shared ideas to be collected by creating a space for group discussion and reflection [31]. This means that the results are not just opinions [32] but are reinforced by group discussion. In this context, the researcher acts as a facilitator, whose role is to encourage interaction between group members to generate deep reflection through discussion [33,34]. After transcribing the group discussion sessions, the information was processed using Atlas.ti software version 9.1.7 due to its ability to organise data and search for patterns [35]. To ensure the rigour of the analysis, researcher triangulation was carried out. In an initial phase, a professor participating in each focus group analysed the data independently, taking into account the interpretive notes collected previously. A thematic analysis was then performed to identify recurring arguments and explore their relationships with the categories found in the literature review. Subsequently, the two professors compared their results until they agreed on the definition of themes and their inclusion in the categories [36].

3. Results

The 37 selected articles were grouped into five categories for analysis: (a) Health and/or well-being and cultural participation; (b) Access to culture for all; (c) Access to culture for people with disabilities; (d) Cultural policies and participation (barriers and facilitators); and (e) Cultural diversity and participation.
The results section contains reviews of the articles and brief reflective summaries of the most relevant ideas in each category, as well as participants’ stories and perceptions regarding each category. These are presented in the order shown in Table 1.

3.1. Category 1: Health, Well-Being and Cultural Participation

Articles and stories in this category discuss the impact of cultural participation on physical and mental health and well-being.
Taking part in cultural activities can help to solve environmental problems, reduce anxiety and depression, and lower the need for medication [47]. It also has the potential to prevent the loss of identity, social isolation and memory problems [6,44]. It has also been shown to be a protective factor that promotes resilience and self-esteem [45]. The positive effects of cultural participation resonate in various areas, from improving people’s subjective well-being to positively influencing physical health and promoting social integration. Empirical research has also revealed a reduction in the consumption of over-the-counter medicines and drugs among those who actively participate in cultural activities [43]. Although most research is conducted with adults, studies focusing on older people are beginning to emerge. Some studies have examined cultural differences between immigrants and natives, as well as the importance of acculturation for indigenous peoples and people with physical disabilities, as these groups are more vulnerable within the dominant culture [37,38,48]. This comprehensive review of the literature highlights the profound impact of cultural engagement on various facets of individual and community well-being.
Several accounts from focus group participants stand out, in which young people expressed feeling capable of successfully facing challenging situations after completing the training programme.
S1:
“We have been able to do everything, and we know how to do it just like everyone else.”
S3:
“We have learned how to explain a monument. I thought it was going to be more difficult, but in the end I found it easy.”
S8:
“When I was preparing the summary, I was nervous at first, but I memorised it by reading it over and over again. It’s almost like I have a photographic memory, which helps me. It went well. I know I left out a lot of things I should have said, but it went well.”
In this qualitative study, several participants highlighted the social dimension of group participation as one of the most enriching aspects of the training programme.
S2:
“At first, I was a little embarrassed because I didn’t know what the situation would be like or who I would be with, even though I already knew some people. But now it’s like a gang, a normal group.”

3.2. Category 2: Access to Culture for All

In this category, works and testimonies are grouped together based on the principle that everyone should have equal opportunities to participate in culture.
Although they approach the issue from different perspectives, Narciso et al. [52], Fornasari [50] and Gilroy and Emerson [51] all share a concern for cultural heritage and inclusivity. Narciso et al. [52] argue that virtual reconstructions can make cultural heritage more accessible and immersive for a wider audience, including people with disabilities and those living in remote areas. Fornasari [50] emphasises the need to design cultural spaces so that they are welcoming and inclusive for all visitors, regardless of their background or abilities. Gilroy and Emerson [51] highlight the importance of cultural heritage for the well-being of indigenous communities. Together, these articles offer a valuable overview of the various ways in which cultural heritage can be used to promote inclusion. By making cultural heritage more accessible, inclusive and relevant to everyone, we can create a fairer and more equitable society.
The young participants have suggested some improvements that could be made to make culture more accessible, such as making content easier to read and presenting information in a summarised form.
S5:
“Make it easy to read so that we can all see it. This is because a person with a disability does not understand in the same way as someone without a disability. What you put...”
It is therefore very important that, apart from being easy to read, the information on a website is brief.

3.3. Category: Access to Culture for Persons with Disabilities

The articles and narratives in this category explore the factors affecting the participation of disabled people in cultural activities, including barriers and facilitators.
People with disabilities encounter daily obstacles when it comes to accessing physical spaces, education, employment, transport and civic participation [56]. Sabatini et al. [54] highlight that individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have lower levels of cultural participation and economic capital than those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Collaboration with socio-educational institutions is essential for developing inclusive artistic projects and teams with high accessibility awareness [55]. Remote culture can also increase accessibility, but it requires digital literacy and access to technology. The literature identifies digital exclusion, or the ‘digital divide’, as a challenge to making remote culture accessible, although the authors point out some factors that could address it. However, remote participation lacks tactile and bodily experiences, which limits the depth of engagement. It also blurs the boundary between private and public space [53].
Participants in the training programme have expressed that they use technology, in addition to entertainment, as a means of approaching culture.
S6:
“This summer, I went out with my parents and helped my sister look for things. My sister was searching for things and I was looking on TikTok for the most famous places to visit in Andalusia.”
Given the characteristics of the group of participants, the use of technology is particularly relevant as an indispensable tool for their social integration, as the young woman with a hearing impairment indicated.
S4:
“I use my mobile phone a lot because it’s a way for me to communicate via video calls and WhatsApp, and to get the news. I mean, it’s essential for me. I need it. Without my mobile phone, I couldn’t live—I’d have to do.”
In this regard, a participant diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) points out an app she uses to navigate the city:
S1:
“Moovit, which I can use to navigate. I pay an annual subscription so it can tell me where the bus is in real time.”
Although the advantages of new technologies are obvious, young people are also aware of some of the risks involved, such as scams, harassment, cyberbullying and technology addiction.
S7:
“But I think what people should learn is how to stick around for a while and then leave. That’s what I’d like to learn. But it’s as if it hooks you...”

3.4. Category 4: Cultural Policies and Participation (Barriers and Facilitators)

This category includes works and narratives that reflect on how cultural policies can affect people’s participation in culture, including the obstacles and facilitators involved.
Cultural policies aimed at inclusion promote equitable access to cultural heritage and institutions through physical, regulatory and educational interventions [57]. The active participation of people with disabilities in cultural activities, professional training and employment in the arts sector is emphasised, as well as communicative accessibility through assistive technologies, sign language and disseminating accessible information [58]. Socioeconomic, ethnic and territorial inequalities influence cultural participation, particularly within educational and community settings. This necessitates an intersectional and contextualised approach to policy design [60,64]. Theoretical frameworks on participation advocate considering its various dimensions and implementing measures to reduce structural, attitudinal and communicative barriers [58,64]. Policies show varying degrees of effectiveness in groups such as migrants and women, although non-formal education is associated with significant improvements in cultural and social engagement [61,62]. Cultural participation is also promoted by inclusive sports activities [63] and digital technologies, which can empower individuals and promote media literacy and active citizenship, particularly among young people [59].
Having a deaf person in the focus group raises awareness of this disability, which is why using sign language in cultural content has been highlighted as another accessibility tool.
S4:
“The minimum requirement would be subtitles; if an interpreter were also provided, that would be even better. There is always something missing.”
In terms of facilitators for access to culture, one participant broadens the focus beyond cultural spaces themselves, extending accessibility to restaurants.
S1:
“you can make it more accessible so that everyone can access it as easily as possible in all environments. I mean, even a place to eat that is accessible. So, maybe we can talk about a restaurant that is not currently accessible, and discuss how we can make it accessible so that everyone can enjoy it, because it’s also part of tourism. It’s also part of culture, right?”
For the young people participating in the focus group, the concept of culture encompasses a variety of expressions. In this sense, they mention concerts, dancing, food and drink, parties, museums, the cinema and, on several occasions, sports.

3.5. Category 5: Cultural Diversity and Participation

This category includes works and testimonials analysing how cultural participation can help people to learn about and appreciate different cultures.
Cultural participation contributes to the development of civic skills and attitudes. Taking part in cultural activities can enhance people’s knowledge, critical thinking, empathy and sense of social responsibility, potentially leading to increased civic engagement [66]. As noted in the literature on research conducted with immigrants, the data indicated that a strong sense of identification with the host society moderates the relationship between an immigrant’s level of education and their level of cultural participation [67]. Cultural inclusion was significantly related to greater quantities and qualities of intercultural contact, as well as to more intercultural friendships [69]. Historically, racial marginalisation has restricted market opportunities for Black artists in the artistic expression of Black minorities. Consequently, middle-class Black individuals interviewed commonly describe Black participation in the arts as a means of supporting Black artists [71]. Participation of women at social, economic and cultural levels was analysed [70], as was religiosity and cultural participation [58], as well as conditions such as ASD [68].
One of the main motivations for young people to participate in the training programme as cultural agents is the opportunity to travel and meet new people.
S9:
“Meeting people and their ideas, and learning how they approach issues such as accessibility. Getting to know a new place and meeting new people at the university and through the project is a gift.”
The young participants have highlighted this dimension of approaching other realities, pointing out the heterogeneity of the group in which they have been immersed. This has given them new perspectives on diversity and how to relate to others.
S1:
“Working with people with disabilities, with whom I had not worked before, has made me realise that we are all valuable, that we must be very inclusive, and that places should be more accessible. I notice this every time I go somewhere.”
Among the young people in the focus group, some pointed out that the training programme had helped them to appreciate their local cultural heritage.
S7:
“Because we are so involved in technology, we walk past the cathedral, for example, and don’t appreciate it.”

4. Findings and Discussion

Reviewing the scientific literature on social inclusion and access to culture has provided us with a comprehensive understanding of the key elements of the exclusion of vulnerable groups from cultural activities. Additionally, we have gained insight into the perspectives of a group of young people with disabilities who participated in a social and occupational training programme in the cultural sector by comparing their views with those presented in scientific literature.
Regarding the characteristics of vulnerable groups in terms of access to culture, most of the analysed studies refer to adults, with a growing focus on older people [6], undoubtedly due to increased life expectancy. Specifically, several studies have focused on older people with memory problems and dementia [44,54]. Attention has also been paid to Black people [71], cultural differences between immigrants and natives, and the importance of the enculturation of indigenous peoples [37,48]. Another group that has been analysed is women with low cultural levels [62]. Overall, people with disabilities have generated the most literature as a vulnerable group within the dominant culture [53,56,68].
The reviewed literature has highlighted the positive impact of cultural participation on the community. Participation in cultural activities can contribute to the development of skills, critical thinking, empathy and a sense of social responsibility in individuals, which can lead to greater civic engagement [40,47]. Similarly, the profound impact of cultural engagement on various aspects of individual and community well-being has been emphasised [46,49].
Regarding cultural participation and its physical and mental health consequences, young people participating in the Isa Culture project identified being part of a group as one of the most enriching aspects of their experience. Previous studies of the Spanish population [72] have revealed that young people with disabilities suffer the most discrimination in contexts involving social interaction and recreation. Belonging to a group can mitigate the lack of relationships or peer groups experienced by this population, thereby increasing subjective well-being, physical health, and social integration [73,74].
Some testimonials from young people indicate that working as tour guides in the programme provided them an opportunity to practise their communication and self-regulation skills (e.g., public speaking or learning a text) in a controlled and successful environment. This can be interpreted as a way of enhancing their sense of self-efficacy and, consequently, their well-being.
Based on the analysed literature, we can conclude that barriers to accessing culture are more related to acquired status, such as employment status and income, than to characteristics such as gender and age. In this sense, unemployment and physical limitations seem to be factors that contribute to social exclusion in culture [54]. In line with authors such as Leahy and Ferri [58], young participants highlight barriers to accessing cultural content, particularly with regard to communication and limited access to information. This may be related to the fact that most of the group analysed consists of people with ID. The importance of disseminating accessible information, particularly in support of sign language through legislative protection, has already been emphasised by Šubic & Ferri [57].
The so-called ‘digital divide’ has been identified in the literature as a challenge to making remote culture accessible [53]. Focus group participants highlight risks such as scams, cyberbullying and addiction when using new technologies. It is encouraging that young people are aware of these dangers themselves, although this may be because all of the young people in the focus group come from social organisations. Being part of associations for people with disabilities has helped several young people acquire resources, skills and knowledge about the safe use of information and communication technologies, which may be lacking in those not linked to an associative-educational network.
The focus group participants are familiar with technology, such as smartphones and social media, which they primarily use for entertainment and socialising. Some of the young people with disabilities in this study have identified this use of social media as a channel for accessing culture. In this regard, the results confirm the findings of Narciso et al. [52] who emphasised the importance of technology in making cultural heritage more accessible and immersive for a broader audience, including people with disabilities and those living in remote areas.
The systematic review results have identified some good practices for promoting inclusion. These include the virtualisation of cultural spaces, designing more inclusive environments in museums and cultural facilities, and programming that caters for diverse audiences [50,52]. Other facilitators of inclusion identified in the literature include universal design, cultural materials in accessible formats, the use of sign language and collaboration with educational institutions [55], which aligns with the experiences of the young people participating in the programme. According to the literature, cultural policy strategies prioritise improving physical access to heritage and cultural institutions by proposing measures such as rehabilitation and regulatory standards. However, the lack of physical accessibility continues to be a barrier to cultural participation [56].
This study has shown that solutions to make culture more inclusive must consider multifaceted aspects such as the economy, health, access to technology and education. From a practical perspective, the findings suggest that public policies should facilitate access to a variety of cultural activities at minimal cost. This is because sociocultural integration is an effective way of creating inclusive, safe and happy communities. The data indicate that an effective way to make culture more accessible to groups with limited access is to promote digital literacy and provide the entire population with access to new technologies. If the aim is to reach a more diverse audience, policies should focus on diverse cultural expressions such as concerts, dance, gastronomy, festivals and sports.
A key strength of this study is the direct participation of young disabled people, providing a realistic view of cultural inclusion. Participation in the focus groups has increased the agency and participation opportunities of people with disabilities, facilitated by a non-intimidating environment and an approachable setting.
To generalise the results of this study, future research could improve our overall understanding of the phenomenon by broadening the scope of the analysis to include participants of different ages, levels of support, life trajectories, and geographic origins. Considering the intersection between disability and other axes of inequality is essential to better understanding the structural barriers that condition access to and participation in cultural life.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.S.-V., A.M.-O. and C.D.G.-V.; investigation: S.S.-V., A.M.-O., C.D.G.-V., E.M.-V., G.P.D.A.-G., V.D.-B. and B.M.-G.; resources: S.S.-V., A.M.-O. and C.D.G.-V.; writing—original draft preparation: S.S.-V. and A.M.-O.; writing—review and editing: S.S.-V., A.M.-O., C.D.G.-V., E.M.-V., G.P.D.A.-G., V.D.-B. and B.M.-G.; visualisation: S.S.-V., A.M.-O., C.D.G.-V. and E.M.-V.; supervision: S.S.-V. and A.M.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has been co-financed by Erasmus + ISA CULTURE: INTELLECTUALLY AND SOCIALLY ACCESSIBLE—On the way to equality: culture as a tool for social inclusion and labour integration (Erasmus + 2022-2-PT02-KA220-YOU-000094042). This concerns a project led by the Bracara Augusta Foundation, with partnerships comprising the Portuguese Catholic University and Cerci Braga in Portugal, the University of Burgos in Spain, and the Zavod RISA Association in Slovenia. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Burgos (protocol number IO 22/2024, approval date: 16 April 2024) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the participants in this study and their families for their collaboration, as well as to the associations and social organisations to which they belong. We would also like to thank the University of Burgos (Spain) for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
EUEuropean Union
IDIntellectual Disability
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
PICOPopulation, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes
ASDAutism Spectrum Disorder

References

  1. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Social Inclusion: Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Generation of Indicators Related to the Sustainable Development Goals; United Nations Development Programme: Mexico City, Mexico, 2015; Available online: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/mx/ODS-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2025).
  2. Silver, H. The Contexts of Social Inclusion. SSRN Work. Pap. 2015, 144, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Johnson, K. Recognising Cultural Diversity: Implications for Persons with Disabilities. In Recognising Human Rights in Different Cultural Contexts; Kakoullis, E.J., Johnson, K., Eds.; Palgrave: Singapore, 2020; pp. 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. European Parliament Research Service (EPRS). Access to Culture in the European Union; Pasikowska-Schnass, M., Ed.; European Parliament Research Service: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_IDA(2017)608631 (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  5. Stenou, K.; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity: A Vision, a Conceptual Platform, a Pool of Ideas for Implementation, a New Paradigm; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2022; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000127162 (accessed on 29 May 2025).
  6. Bernardo, L.D.; Carvalho, C.R.A.D. The role of cultural engagement for older adults: An integrative review of scientific literature. Rev. Bras. Geriatr. Gerontol. 2020, 23, e190141. Available online: https://www.scielo.br/j/rbgg/a/bm4KygNqHKR8QF4QQFdGZbj/?lang=en (accessed on 16 July 2025). [CrossRef]
  7. Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad; Ministerio de Cultura. Estrategia Integral Española de Cultura para Todos: Accesibilidad a la Cultura Para las Personas con Discapacidad; Real Patronato sobre Discapacidad: Madrid, España, 2011; Available online: https://www.cedid.es/es/buscar/Record/180856 (accessed on 16 July 2025).
  8. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Available online: https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  9. Kuppers, P. Studying Disability Arts and Culture: An Introduction; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education—All Means All; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718 (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  11. Mesquita, S.; Carneiro, M.J. Accessibility of European museums to visitors with visual impairments. Disabil. Soc. 2016, 31, 373–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Statistical Office of the European Communities. People at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion [Tipslc10]; Statistical Office of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2025; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tipslc10/default/table?lang=en&category=tips.tipspo (accessed on 18 July 2025).
  13. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Encuesta de Discapacidad, Autonomía Personal y Situaciones de Dependencia (EDAD 2008): Avance de Resultados; Instituto Nacional de Estadística: Madrid, Spain, 2008; Nota de prensa; Available online: https://ine.es/prensa/np524.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2008).
  14. Riddell, S.; Watson, N. Disability, Culture and Identity; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  15. Puyalto, C.; Pallisera, M.; Fullana, J.; Vilá, M. Doing Research Together: A Study on the Views of Advisors with Intellectual Disabilities and Non-Disabled Researchers Collaborating in Research. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 2016, 29, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Walmsley, J. Normalisation, emancipatory research and inclusive research in learning disability. Disabil. Soc. 2001, 16, 187–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kiernan, C. Participation in research by people with learning disability: Origins and issues. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 1999, 27, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Verdugo, M.A.; Navas, P.; Gómez, L.E.; Schalock, R.L. The concept of quality of life and its role in enhancing human rights in the field of intellectual disability. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2012, 56, 1036–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hewitt, O.; Langdon, P.E.; Tapp, K.; Larkin, M. A systematic review and narrative synthesis of inclusive health and social care research with people with intellectual disabilities: How are co-researchers involved and what are their experiences? J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 2023, 36, 681–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Sabirón, F. Métodos de Investigación Etnográfica en Ciencias Sociales; Mira: Madrid, España, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  21. González, J.; Buñuel, J.C.; Aparicio, M. Listas guía de comprobación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA. Evid. Pediatr. 2011, 7, 20. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kaehne, A.; O’Connell, C. Focus groups with people with learning disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. 2010, 14, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rogel-Salazar, R. El grupo de discusión: Revisión de premisas metodológicas. Cinta Moebio 2018, 63, 274–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Angrosino, M. Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  26. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6.5 (Updated August 2024); Cochrane: London, UK, 2024; Available online: https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  27. McKenzie, J.E.; Brennan, S.E.; Ryan, R.E.; Thomson, H.J.; Johnston, R.V.; Thomas, J. Chapter 3: Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 6.5; Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., Welch, V.A., Eds.; Cochrane: London, UK, 2024; Available online: https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03 (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  28. De Munck, V.C.; Sobo, E.J. Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook; AltaMira Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  29. Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  30. Jachyra, P.; Atkinson, M.; Washiya, Y. “Who are you, and what are you doing here”: Methodological considerations in ethnographic Health and Physical Education research. Ethnogr. Educ. 2015, 10, 242–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kitzinger, J. Qualitative Research: Introducing Focus Groups. BMJ 1995, 311, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mays, N.; Pope, C. Qualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ 1995, 311, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barbour, R. Doing Focus Groups; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pérez-Sánchez, R.; Víquez-Calderón, D. Los grupos de discusión como metodología adecuada para estudiar las cogniciones sociales. Actual. En Psicol. 2010, 23, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nicácio, R.T.; Barbosa, R.L.L. Understanding higher education teaching, learning and evaluation: A qualitative analysis supported by ATLAS.ti. In Computer Supported Qualitative Research—Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Qualitative Research, East Hanover, NJ, USA, 27 June–29 July 2018; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 393–399. [Google Scholar]
  36. Flick, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 6th ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  37. Giovanis, E. Participation in Socio-Cultural Activities and Subjective Well-Being of Natives and Migrants: Evidence from Germany and the UK. Int. Rev. Econ. 2023, 68, 423–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reyes-Martínez, J.; Takeuchi, D.; Martínez-Martínez, O.A.; Lombe, M. The Role of Cultural Participation on Subjective Well-Being in Mexico. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2021, 16, 1321–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Løkken, B.I.; Merom, D.; Sund, E.R.; Krokstad, S.; Rangul, V. Association of Engagement in Cultural Activities with Cause-Specific Mortality Determined through an Eight-Year Follow-Up: The HUNT Study, Norway. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nappo, N.; Fiorillo, D. Volunteering and Self-Perceived Individual Health: Cross-Country Evidence from Nine European Countries. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2020, 47, 285–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Agovino, M.; Crociata, A.; Quaglione, D.; Sacco, P.; Sarra, A. Good Taste Tastes Good: Cultural Capital as a Determinant of Organic Food Purchase by Italian Consumers: Evidence and Policy Implications. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 141, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. O’Brien, G.T. Small and Slow Is Beautiful: Well-Being, ‘Socially Connective Retail’ and the Independent Bookshop. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2017, 18, 573–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Currie, C.L.; Wild, T.C.; Schopflocher, D.P.; Laing, L.; Veugelers, P. Illicit and Prescription Drug Problems among Urban Aboriginal Adults in Canada: The Role of Traditional Culture in Protection and Resilience. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 88, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Adamsen, C.; Manson, S.M.; Jiang, L. The Association of Cultural Participation and Social Engagement with Self-Reported Diagnosis of Memory Problems among American Indian and Alaska Native Elders. J. Aging Health 2021, 33 (Suppl. S7–S8), 60S–67S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cocozza, S.; Sacco, P.L.; Matarese, G.; Maffulli, G.D.; Maffulli, N.; Tramontano, D. Participation to Leisure Activities and Well-Being in a Group of Residents of Naples-Italy: The Role of Resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Węziak-Białowolska, D. Attendance of Cultural Events and Involvement with the Arts—Impact Evaluation on Health and Well-Being from a Swiss Household Panel Survey. Public Health 2016, 139, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cuypers, K.; Krokstad, S.; Holmen, T.L.; Knudtsen, M.S.; Bygren, L.O.; Holmen, J. Patterns of Receptive and Creative Cultural Activities and Their Association with Perceived Health, Anxiety, Depression and Satisfaction with Life among Adults: The HUNT Study, Norway. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2012, 66, 698–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Giovanis, E.; Akdede, S.H. Well-Being of Old Natives and Immigrants in Europe: Does the Socio-Cultural Integration Matter? Int. J. Happiness Dev. 2022, 7, 291–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Van Campen, C.; Iedema, J. Are Persons with Physical Disabilities Who Participate in Society Healthier and Happier? Structural Equation Modelling of Objective Participation and Subjective Well-Being. Qual. Life Res. 2007, 16, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fornasari, F. Social Inclusion and Museum. Communities, Places, Narratives. Eur. J. Creat. Pract. Cities Landsc. 2020, 3, 159–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gilroy, J.; Emerson, E. Australian Indigenous Children with Low Cognitive Ability: Family and Cultural Participation. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2016, 56, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Narciso, D.; Pádua, L.; Adão, T.; Peres, E.; Magalhães, L. Mixar Mobile Prototype: Visualizing Virtually Reconstructed Ancient Structures In Situ. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 64, 852–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dubiel, M. National Theatre in My Kitchen: Access to Culture for Blind People in Poland During COVID-19. Soc. Incl. 2023, 11, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sabatini, S.; Martyr, A.; Gamble, L.D.; Jones, I.R.; Collins, R.; Matthews, F.E.; Knapp, M.; Thom, J.M.; Henderson, C.; Victor, C.; et al. Are Profiles of Social, Cultural, and Economic Capital Related to Living Well with Dementia? Longitudinal Findings from the IDEAL Programme. Soc. Sci. Med. 2023, 317, 115603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gigerl, M.; Sanahuja-Gavaldà, J.M.; Petrinska-Labudovikj, R.; Moron-Velasco, M.; Rojas-Pernia, S.; Tragatschnig, U. Collaboration between Schools and Museums for Inclusive Cultural Education: Findings from the INARTdis-Project. Front. Educ. 2022, 7, 979260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vargas-Pineda, D.R.; López-Hernández, O. Experiencias de Artistas con Discapacidad frente a la Promoción de la Inclusión Social. Arte Individuo Soc. 2020, 32, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Šubic, N.; Ferri, D. National Disability Strategies as Rights-Based Cultural Policy Tools. Int. J. Cult. Policy 2023, 29, 467–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Leahy, A.; Ferri, D. Barriers and Facilitators to Cultural Participation by People with Disabilities: A Narrative Literature Review. Scand. J. Disabil. Res. 2022, 24, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Theben, A.; Aranda, D.; Lupiáñez Villanueva, F.; Porcu, F. Participación y Ciudadanía Activa de los Jóvenes a Través de Internet y las Redes Sociales: Un Estudio Internacional. Bid-Textos Univ. Bibl. Doc. 2021, 46, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mak, H.W.; Fancourt, D. Do Socio-Demographic Factors Predict Children’s Engagement in Arts and Culture? Comparisons of In-School and Out-of-School Participation in the Taking Part Survey. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Giovanis, E.; Akdede, S.H. Integration Policies in Spain and Sweden: Do They Matter for Migrants’ Economic Integration and Socio-Cultural Participation? SAGE Open 2021, 11, 21582440211054476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Iñiguez-Berrozpe, T.; Elboj-Saso, C.; Flecha, A.; Marcaletti, F. Benefits of Adult Education Participation for Low-Educated Women. Adult Educ. Q. 2020, 70, 64–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hallmann, K.; Artime, C.M.; Breuer, C.; Dallmeyer, S.; Metz, M. Leisure Participation: Modelling the Decision to Engage in Sports and Culture. J. Cult. Econ. 2017, 41, 467–487. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48698175 (accessed on 15 July 2025). [CrossRef]
  64. Gohn, M.G. Teorias sobre a Participação Social: Desafios para a Compreensão das Desigualdades Sociais. Cad. CRH 2019, 32, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. McAndrew, S.; Richards, L. Religiosity, Secular Participation, and Cultural Socialization: A Case Study of the 1933–1942 Urban English Cohort. J. Sci. Study Relig. 2020, 59, 247–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Campagna, D.; Caperna, G.; Montalto, V. Does Culture Make a Better Citizen? Exploring the Relationship Between Cultural and Civic Participation in Italy. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 149, 657–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kraaykamp, G.; Notten, N.; Bekhuis, H. Highbrow Cultural Participation of Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands: Testing an Identification and Social Network Explanation. Cult. Trends 2015, 24, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dillenburger, K.; McKerr, L.; Jordan, J.A.; Devine, P.; Keenan, M. Creating an Inclusive Society… How Close Are We in Relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder? A General Population Survey. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 2015, 28, 330–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tawagi, A.L.; Mak, A.S. Cultural Inclusiveness Contributing to International Students’ Intercultural Attitudes: Mediating Role of Intergroup Contact Variables. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 25, 340–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Moghadam, V.M.; Senftova, L. Measuring Women’s Empowerment: Participation and Rights in Civil, Political, Social, Economic, and Cultural Domains. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 2005, 57, 389–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Banks, P.A. Black Cultural Advancement: Racial Identity and Participation in the Arts among the Black Middle Class. Ethn. Racial Stud. 2010, 33, 272–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Porras Montes, A.; Huete García, A. Juventud Con Discapacidad en España 2024. Informe de Situación; CERMI—Comité Español de Representantes de Personas con Discapacidad: Madrid, España, 2024; Available online: https://diario.cermi.es/file/juventud-con-discapacidad-en-espana-2024-informe-de-situacion (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  73. Coleman, J. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, S95–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
Societies 15 00288 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart of the bibliographic analysis.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the bibliographic analysis.
Societies 15 00288 g001
Table 1. Articles selected for systematic review and their grouping into categories of analysis.
Table 1. Articles selected for systematic review and their grouping into categories of analysis.
CategoriesRecords Included
Health and/or Well-Being and Cultural Participation[6,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]
Access to culture for all[50,51,52]
Access to culture for people with disabilities[53,54,55,56]
Cultural policies and participation (barriers and facilitators)[57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]
Cultural diversity and participation[65,66,67,68,69,70,71]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sáez-Velasco, S.; Merino-Orozco, A.; Di Giusto-Valle, C.; Mercado-Val, E.; Pérez De Albéniz-Garrote, G.; Delgado-Benito, V.; Medina-Gómez, B. Cultural Participation as a Pathway to Social Inclusion: A Systematic Review and Youth Perspectives on Disability and Engagement. Societies 2025, 15, 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15100288

AMA Style

Sáez-Velasco S, Merino-Orozco A, Di Giusto-Valle C, Mercado-Val E, Pérez De Albéniz-Garrote G, Delgado-Benito V, Medina-Gómez B. Cultural Participation as a Pathway to Social Inclusion: A Systematic Review and Youth Perspectives on Disability and Engagement. Societies. 2025; 15(10):288. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15100288

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sáez-Velasco, Sara, Abel Merino-Orozco, Cristina Di Giusto-Valle, Elvira Mercado-Val, Gloria Pérez De Albéniz-Garrote, Vanesa Delgado-Benito, and Begoña Medina-Gómez. 2025. "Cultural Participation as a Pathway to Social Inclusion: A Systematic Review and Youth Perspectives on Disability and Engagement" Societies 15, no. 10: 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15100288

APA Style

Sáez-Velasco, S., Merino-Orozco, A., Di Giusto-Valle, C., Mercado-Val, E., Pérez De Albéniz-Garrote, G., Delgado-Benito, V., & Medina-Gómez, B. (2025). Cultural Participation as a Pathway to Social Inclusion: A Systematic Review and Youth Perspectives on Disability and Engagement. Societies, 15(10), 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15100288

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop