Introduction

Gender differences in employment is a significant ongoing issue, not only for youth with disabilities but for women of all ages and abilities [1, 2]. For example, despite significant progress in reducing gender inequalities in the labour market in the past several decades, gender gaps in employment rates persist [1,2,3]. Although women account for approximately half of the workforce, gender disparities in earnings are prevalent [4]. Within the general population there are gender differences in employment and earnings with women consistently earning less than men, even with equal performance levels [5, 6]. For example, women working full-time, year-round earned on average 19% less than male full-time employees [4, 7]. Further, women (of all abilities) continue to be over-represented in low-paid sectors, part-time, and temporary work [1].

Gender gaps in employment also affect young women with disabilities entering the workforce [7]. We draw on the World Health Organization’s International classification of Functioning to inform our understanding of disability which is defined as impairment, activity limitation, participation restriction whereby a disability and functioning are shaped by interactions between health conditions and contextual factors [8]. Although women with disabilities have improved their educational outcomes, they have lower employment rates and earnings, and greater dependence on public support than men with disabilities [9]. Further, young women with disabilities have lower participation in high-skilled jobs and work fewer hours per week than males with disabilities [7]. Women who have disabilities encounter a ‘double disadvantage’ in employment because they also often experience disability discrimination and other accessibility barriers [7] which restricts career development and limits employment opportunities [10]. Indeed, research shows that men with disabilities have a better chance of escaping poverty through employment than do women [9].

Those who have a disability often encounter additional hurdles, such as stigma, inaccessible jobs, and transportation difficulties while transitioning into the workforce [11,12,13,14,15]. As a result of the barriers that youth with disabilities encounter they are half as likely as their typically developing peers to be employed [11, 13, 16, 17]. The high unemployment rates for people with disabilities are largely a result of their talents and abilities being ignored and unacknowledged, rather than an unwillingness to work [11,12,13, 18]. For those who start life with a disability, disadvantages are compounded and can affect their ability to find and maintain employment [18, 19]. Exploring this age group is important because there is an enhanced focus on emerging adulthood, a distinct developmental period between ages 18–25 [19]. This period is characterized by instability, identity exploration, self-focus, and growth of executive functioning, which is critical for building employable and independence skills [19]. Therefore, this stage of development offers a vital chance to cultivate work-based identities [11,12,13, 18, 19]. Although there is a growing literature exploring the factors associated with employment for youth with disabilities and their experiences in securing work [11,12,13, 18,19,20] there is little consideration of gender.

Exploring the role of gender in youths’ transition to employment is important because gender influences the career aspirations of people with disabilities, how they cope with their condition, whether they engage in vocational training, and are successful in finding meaningful employment [21]. For example, women with disabilities are more likely to be unemployed [21, 22], to work fewer hours, in lower status occupations, and for significantly less pay than men with disabilities [10, 21,22,23,24,25,26]. Such employment-related gender gaps persist over time [10, 23].

Women with disabilities often lack career development opportunities and receive differential vocational rehabilitation services compared to men [26,27,28,29]. For example, females with disabilities are more likely to receive gender stereotypical occupational training compared to males with disabilities [30]. Women with disabilities also encounter specific difficulties in pursuing their career pathway including having poorer social and communication skills, lower family expectations, gendered role assumptions, decreased self-confidence and limited vocational training compared to males with disabilities [26, 31].

Although few studies directly explore the role of gender and employment for young people with disabilities [20, 32], several researchers argue that there is a critical need for gender-specific vocational supports for young adults with disabilities [33,34,35,36,37,38]. Thus, understanding the intersection between gender, disability, and employment is salient because differences in employment outcomes are significant for both men and women with disabilities compared to their typically developing peers [22, 39]. Investigating gender is important for decision-making, communication, stakeholder engagement, and uptake of interventions [40]. An enhanced understanding of this topic can help inform researchers, clinicians, and employers. A focus on gender is also relevant because many journals now require greater transparency and rigor in reporting of sex/gender to ensure that the results apply to everyone [40, 41]. Our aim is to systematically review the literature on the role of gender in securing and maintaining employment among youth and young adults with disabilities.

Method

Search Strategy and Data Sources

Our team conducted a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed published literature using the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, JSTOR, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Business Source Premier, Sociological Abstracts, and Scopus. We searched for subject headings related to employment or looking for employment, including disclosure and accommodations and various types of disabilities, gender, and youth/young adults (see supplement for sample database search). Recognizing the methodological diversity of this literature, we did not exclude studies based on design. We did not implement language restrictions at the time of the search. We also manually examined the reference lists of all articles selected for review to identify additional articles for inclusion.

Article Selection

To select articles for this review, we applied the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were: (1) youth and young adults aged 30 or under; (2) had a disability; (3) empirical research in a published, peer-reviewed journal between 1995 and 2016; and (4) had at least one finding related to gender and employment (i.e., defined as paid work). We excluded: opinion and non-empirical articles and dissertations, studies focusing on occupational injury, or risk of injury; articles focusing on others’ attitudes towards or perceptions of youths’ experiences, and studies that only reported gender as a part of their participant characteristics and did not have gender-related findings.

Our search identified 48 articles for potential inclusion (see Fig. 1). After removing the duplicates four authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts (n = 7832). Full-text articles were obtained for 102 studies where we independently applied the inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies of which articles to include were resolved through re-reading the article and discussion. We maintained a log of inclusion and exclusion decisions to provide an audit trail.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Search process flow diagram

Full size image

Data Abstraction and Synthesis

The first author extracted all of the data from the included articles using a structured abstraction form (see Table 1). Four authors verified the abstracted data for accuracy. We also noted limitations of each study and risk of bias. We synthesized our findings according to the guidelines for narrative synthesis by Petticrew and Roberts [42]. This method involves a structured interrogation and summary of all studies selected for inclusion. In the first stage, we organized the studies into logical categories to guide our analysis. We grouped studies by those that focused specifically on gender, those that had female-only and male-only samples, and those that had secondary findings related to gender. Then, we conducted a within study analysis by developing a narrative description of each study’s findings and quality [42]. The next stage involved a cross-study synthesis of the study findings, while considering variations in study design, quality, and sample diversity. Applying this method of data abstraction and synthesis is relevant for reviews that include diverse methodologies [43].

Table 1 Overview of studies
Full size table

Methodological Quality Assessment

Our findings and recommendations for further development of gender-informed vocational rehabilitation and programming are based on the overall strength and the quality of the evidence reviewed. Quality assessments based on Kmet’s [44] standard quality assessment criteria were used. Four authors independently applied a 14-item checklist for quantitative studies and a 10-item checklist for qualitative studies [44]. A total score for each study was derived indicating the overall strength of the evidence (see Supplemental Table). No studies were excluded based on quality. We also followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), a method of transparent reporting [45].

Results

Forty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria for this review, representing 112,473 participants. Thirty-three studies were conducted in the US, five in Canada, two in the Netherlands, two in Spain, and one each in South Korea, India, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the UK (see Table 1). Thirty-eight had quantitative designs (mostly surveys), eight had qualitative, and two had mixed methods. Sample sizes ranged from 6 to 45,125 participants (56% male) and mean age of the total overall sample (both males and females) was 21. It is important to note that two studies [25, 46] did not report the gender composition of their sample. Twenty-one studies included various types of disabilities, while others focused specifically on learning disabilities (5), autism (5), cerebral palsy and spina bifida (3), cancer survivors (2), and one each on: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), renal transplant, brain injury, spinal cord injury, juvenile arthritis, stuttering, burn survivors, bone tumors, cognitive impairment, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, mobility disability, and physical disability. Of the four studies that incorporated a theoretical framework, they included social cognitive career theory, career development theory, habitus, and organizational justice. Fifteen studies focused specifically on gender and employment, seven of which had female-only samples and one had a male-only sample. Thirty-three articles had gender-related findings that were a secondary focus of their study.

Outcomes and Study Findings

Securing Employment

Twenty-one studies reported that young men with disabilities had better employment outcomes than women with various types of disabilities [25, 26, 32,33,34,35, 47,48,49,50,51,52,53] and also specific disability types including learning disabilities [54], cerebral palsy [22], spina bifida [55, 56], autism [57], cancer [58, 59], and mobility disabilities [24]. For example, Blackorby and Wagner [34] found that males with various types of disabilities were significantly more likely than females with disabilities to be employed and were also high wage earners 3–5 years after high school [34]. Others also found that young males with various types of disabilities, with a university education were most likely to be professionally active [47]. Park [24] similarly reported that women with mobility disabilities have more difficulty obtaining employment compared to males.

Employment rates for males with disabilities ranged from 50 to 76.5% compared to 1–27% for females with disabilities [32, 50, 55, 57, 58]. For example, Botluck et al. [32] found that 50% of men and 1% of women with learning disabilities were competitively employed within 6 months of their job placement. Meanwhile, among youth with spina bifida, Van Mechelen et al. [55] found that males with spina bifida were significantly more likely to be working full-time compared to females (64 vs. 24%). Magill-Evans [22] similarly reported that women with cerebral palsy and spina bifida were less likely to be employed compared to men. Holwerda et al. [57] found that among youth with autism or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder 76.5% of females and 65.5% of males were unemployed and that males were 1.62 times more likely to find work compared to females [57]. Gold [50] likewise found that job placement rates were 4.6% lower for females with various types of disabilities than males. Rabren [52] found that 73% of males with various types of disabilities had a job compared to 27% of females. Meanwhile, female childhood cancer survivors were less likely to be employed compared to males with a six-times increased risk of never having been employed [58].

Two studies highlighted that having a high school diploma and completing vocational rehabilitation training did not have the same benefits for women with various types of disabilities as it did for men [26, 48]. Boman’s [48] study also showed a similar trend where men with various types of disabilities with secondary school education had an occupation above their education level to a significantly larger extent than women with disabilities [48]. Similarly, Schaller et al. [60] found that women had higher levels of education than males, yet they worked fewer hours and earned less per week than males.

Eight studies found that females with disabilities had better employment outcomes than males. This trend was the case for youth with acquired brain injury [61], burn survivors [62], spinal cord injury [63], stuttering [64], mobility impairments [11], autism [36, 65], and various disability types [23]. For example, among burn survivors, females reported better quality of life, including work-related life activities compared to males [62]. Male burn survivors needed longer-term psychosocial interventions to help improve quality of life and work-related outcomes [62]. For young adults with an acquired brain injury, being female was a predictor of positive vocational outcomes [61]. Klein and Hood [64] found that men who stutter were more likely to view their condition as a factor hindering employment opportunities compared to women. Further, for women aged 20–24 years with mobility impairments, a higher proportion were employed compared to men [11]. Being female was also a predictive factor of stable employment among young adults with spinal cord injury [63]. Myklebust and Batevik [23] found that women with various types of disabilities with vocational or academic competence had a five times greater chance of having permanent full-time work compared to men. They also reported that having a driver’s license had a significant impact on the economic independence of men and that level of education did not, while the reverse was true for women [23].

In a study with a female-only sample, Doren et al. [10] evaluated a gender-specific career development program for females with various types of disabilities and found that their vocational curriculum led to significant gains in autonomy, gender-related knowledge, social support, and vocational outcome expectations [10]. Mondejar-Jimenez [66] explored various types of disabilities with a female-only sample and found that they had the highest proportion of university graduates compared to typically developing women in the region.

Similar trends of females having better employment outcomes than males were found among youth with autism. For example, Chiang et al. [65] reported that compared to females with autism, males were less likely to participate in employment after high school. Another study focusing on autism found that having co-occurring anxiety or depression alongside autism among males was a deterrent to employment [36]. Sung [36] explained that males and females with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) had different barriers and facilitators to securing employment. Gender-specific predictors of employment included vocational rehabilitation counseling, guidance, and job search assistance [36].

Five studies reported that there were no gender differences in employment outcomes for youth with juvenile arthritis, physical disabilities, and autism [11, 12, 36, 60, 67, 68]. For example, Kaya [68] found that gender was not associated with competitive employment outcomes among youth with autism. Sung et al. [36] similarly reported no significant differences in employment rates between males and females with autism. Schaller et al. [60] found that both males and females with ADHD had the same rates of employment after receiving vocational rehabilitation services. Among youth aged 15–19 with disabilities, Lindsay [11] found that gender did not predict employment outcomes. An important finding in Villanueva-Flores’ [46] study was that gender did not influence differences in perceived workplace discrimination, suggesting that it was experienced to a similar extent for both males and females.

Maintaining Employment

Six studies focused on aspects related to maintaining employment. For example, four studies found that men with disabilities worked more hours, and had better wages than women with disabilities [10, 26, 33, 54, 68, 69]. Coutinho et al. [33] reported that men with various types of disabilities worked more hours, earned more, and received more benefits than women with disabilities. They also found that men reported aspirations that were more favorable to job satisfaction and work orientation than women [33]. Among females with cognitive impairments, Olson [54] found that they worked fewer hours and earned less compared to men with cognitive impairments. Doren [26] similarly found that men with various types of disabilities had higher starting wages than women and that this wage gap persisted even after a 6-year follow-up.

Meanwhile, among youth with autism, Miligore et al. [69] found that being a male with autism was a strong predictor of number of hours worked. Among youth with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, being male predicted maintaining work [57] where 14.7% of males were sustaining employment compared to 6.8% of females. Kulkarni [70] reported a similar trend where they found that more men with various disabilities were proactive in terms of seeking out training to make themselves employable than women.

Ten studies reported on gender-related barriers to maintaining employment. For example, Breslin et al. [71] found that males had a higher work disability rate than females, which may be a result of differences in hazard exposure, physical job demands, and work pace. Klein [64] noted a gender difference among young people who stutter whereby more men thought their condition interfered with job performance than women. Meanwhile, males with DMD expressed that impairment effect, accessibility barriers, and discrimination created difficulties for employment [72]. Magill-Evans et al. [22] found that having a lower IQ and being a woman resulted in under-employment for individuals with cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Powers et al. [30] discovered that females with disabilities experienced gender-related barriers to employment such as being less likely to have paid jobs, lowered expectations from others, and overprotection from parents discouraging independence. Significantly higher case service costs for females with ADHD accessing vocational rehabilitation services have been noted as a potential barrier to their finding and maintaining employment [60].

Other barriers that affected youths’ ability to maintain employment were associated with gender roles. For example, Levine and Edgar [49] highlighted how women with learning disabilities were more prone to single parenthood which impacted their engagement in employment. Lindsay [11] found that significantly more women with disabilities mentioned that family responsibilities were a barrier to employment compared to men with disabilities. Lindstrom [73] described that more women with disabilities did not work full-time and had chaotic patterns of career development with longer periods of unemployment because of health issues, family obligations, or workplace constraints, while men had more linear patterns of career development. Having a poor self-concept was another barrier affecting job competence [67]. For example, Gerdhardt et al. [67] found that women with juvenile arthritis had poorer self-concept in relation to job competence than men with juvenile arthritis and typically developing women.

Mondejar et al. [66] also had a female-only sample and explored the socio-labour situation of women with disabilities in a rural area of Spain. They reported that women with disabilities encounter obstacles being incorporated into the labour market such as: family responsibilities, transportation difficulties, architectural barriers, and lack of job supports, which reflect the economic and infrastructural challenges of rural areas. Women also reported poor quality of information regarding work topics, and lack of help with job seeking and obtaining assistance or grants [66].

Ten studies highlighted gender-related facilitators to maintaining employment. For example, having social supports was beneficial for both males and females [69]. Education was also seen as a facilitator for obtaining and maintaining employment for both males and females [59, 69]. Doren et al. [26] found that vocational rehabilitation counselling was found to be a facilitator for men, whereas Strauser et al. [74] found it as a facilitator for women. Lindstrom [73] described that females with various disabilities who were successful in finding employment had supports, especially stronger family relations, and skills that distinguished them from males [73]. Meanwhile, Klein [64] found that more men with various types of disabilities indicated that having co-workers with a disability helped them to socialize with co-workers and acclimatize to their workplace. Further, women with cognitive impairments were perceived as more socially appropriate than males on several job dimensions such as aggression, sexual behavior, and hygiene [54]. Among youth with ADHD factors that were associated with successful employment for males were vocational rehabilitation counselling, job search assistance, and job placement [60]. Meanwhile, for females with ADHD the only factors associated with successful competitive employment was job search assistance [60].

Myklebust [23] found that having a driver’s license was a facilitator to employment for men, while academic competence was a facilitator for women. Sung [36] found that vocational rehabilitation counselling, guidance, and job search assistance was a facilitator to employment specifically for males with ASD. Schaller [60] noted that factors for successful employment for women with ADHD included job search assistance, whereas for men it was vocational rehabilitation counselling, job search assistance, and job placement.

Powers et al.’s [30] study showed that males and females with disabilities differed in the employment outcomes they hoped to achieve. They discovered that gendered stereotypes persist, with females encountering lowered expectations and parental overprotectiveness, while males often expected to live independently and secure employment [30].

Qualitative Experiences

Eight studies [7, 22, 70, 72, 73, 75,76,77] used a qualitative approach to explore gender and employment among youth with disabilities. Lindstrom and Benz [76] found that among young women with learning disabilities they had three distinct phases of career development including unsettled, exploratory, and focused. These stages varied by the stability of employment and clarity of career goals. Factors influencing career development included motivation, self-determination, family support and advocacy, opportunities for career exploration, vocational training, and supportive work environments [77]. In a follow-up study, Lindstrom et al. [7] found that gender roles, disability, family expectations, early work experience, and career exploration influenced career choice. Supports that are needed to prepare young women with disabilities in the workforce included individual and interpersonal skills, career options, school system issues, and disability needs [76]. Lindstrom et al. [73] found that men with disabilities had more linear patterns of career development, while women were much less likely to work full-time or continuously during their transition years.

In Hogansen et al.’s [75] study with a female-only sample with various types of disabilities, they highlighted that females have unique experiences related to transition goals and sources of support. Women emphasized the importance of others believing in and supporting them in their employment goals, and reportedly often stayed silent in transition planning meetings and events for fear of social rejection. Females often encounter parental overprotection which can hinder engagement in employment [75].

Only one study [72] in our review had a male-only sample in their exploration of gender, disability and transition to adulthood among youth with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. They found that disability, masculinities, and life stage identities intersected through narratives on non-difference where young men worked to establish identities as ‘typical’ men. They found that young men had challenges finding work, especially with managing fatigue. Disability was viewed as a barrier by employers. Youth reported that they saw employment as a form of social inclusion even though most of the men were unemployed [72].

Quality Appraisal and Limitations of this Review

We noted several limitations among the articles that were included in the review. Four authors independently rated each study. The overall scores for quantitative studies ranged from 0.36 to 0.86 (mean 0.79) (see Supplemental Table). For the qualitative studies, scores ranged from 0.6 to 0.95 (mean 0.78). In regards to inter-rater agreement, reviewers assigned the same overall score to 84% of the studies. For the remaining studies, discrepancies in the overall scores ranged from 0.2 to 0.4. Most discrepancies reflected differences in the applicability of certain items regarding yes versus partial fulfilment of specific criteria. Any items that had discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Areas where some of the quantitative studies scored lower were for not fully explaining their analysis, having an estimate of variance, or controlling for confounding factors. Areas where some of the qualitative studies scored lower included not having a theoretical framework, inadequately describing their sampling strategy or data analysis and lacking a description of their reflexivity account.

Although the limitations of each of the studies are reported in Table 1, we have highlighted several common issues here. First, most of the studies included various types of disabilities which could potentially mask any gender differences. It will be important for future studies to focus on specific disability types while also accounting for condition severity and age of disability onset. Second, the gender composition of the samples ranged considerably and thus, caution should be used when interpreting the findings. Third, most of the studies sampled from only one location and there is limited generalizability of the findings. The sample sizes of some of the qualitative studies were also small and may not have reached thematic saturation. Fourth, most of the quantitative studies focused on employment outcomes and we know little about youths’ actual experiences within the workplace (e.g., types of employment, working conditions, extent of inclusion). Future research should explore this further. Fifth, gender roles and expectations regarding employment vary by culture, and also over time. Our review included studies from ten countries over a 20-year time period and thus, it is important to consider the diversity of gender role expectations.

A limitation of our review includes that not all studies contributed equally to the overall findings, which we noted in Table 1. Some studies focused specifically on gender and employment, while for others it was a secondary focus. Further, we included a broad range of types of disabilities and it was difficult to make conclusions across various conditions. We felt it was important to include all relevant studies to develop a comprehensive understanding of the role of gender in employment among youth with disabilities. Second, we only included published, peer-reviewed articles. Future reviews could consider grey literature and dissertations.

Discussion

This systematic review explored the role of gender in securing and maintaining employment among youth with disabilities over a 20-year period. Exploring gender is important because women of all abilities and ages continue to lag behind men in terms of employment outcomes and wages [7, 10]. Further, gender shapes how youth engage in vocational rehabilitation and whether they secure employment [21]. The majority of the studies in our review showed that young men with disabilities had better employment outcomes than women with disabilities. This pattern is consistent with the literature on adults with disabilities where women with disabilities are often viewed as being multiply disadvantaged and compared to men with disabilities regarding employment outcomes and salary [78]. Such trends could be due to differences in vocational services and training opportunities [26, 27]. Females with disabilities often lack career development opportunities and are more likely to receive gender stereotypical job training compared to males with disabilities [30]. Such gendered patterns can be problematic, leading to poor employment outcomes and/or low-wage jobs [7, 28]. Our review highlighted that women with disabilities also encounter different challenges than men such as lowered family expectations, poorer self-confidence, and communication skills [10, 31].

Some studies within our review reported that females with disabilities had better employment outcomes than males for certain disability types such as acquired brain injury [61], ASD [65] burn survivors [62], spinal cord injury [63], stuttering [64], and mobility impairments [11]. These gender differences may be partly a result of the nature of the disability (i.e., age at onset, severity, etc.), coping strategies, willingness to ask for help, disclose their conditions, and/or request workplace accommodations [11, 12].

There are several possible explanations why females had better employment outcomes than males. First, with ABI, burn survivors, and spinal cord injury—participants in these studies could have had varying degrees of employment experience before their injury. Second, it could be that females within these samples had milder forms of disability. Moreover, the severity of the injury/condition was often not broken down by gender. Thus, it is difficult to discern if the was gender alone impacting employment or some interaction effect with other factors. Third, in Lindsay’s study [79], more males reported being refused a job interview compared to females, suggesting more stigma/discrimination than females. Fourth, in regards to stuttering [64], women perceive stuttering to be less handicapping than do men. Therefore, they may have had higher self-esteem to seek employment than men [64]. Fifth, many of these studies had small, non-representative, and gender inequitable samples. In the case of Foy’s [61] study, their sample comprised more females even though ABI is more common among males. Further, many youth within their study were returning to school rather than going into employment which may have affected employment outcomes [61]. Meanwhile, Klein’s study [64] had an over-representation of males (71%) and their sample had a small representation of younger people.

Our findings may highlight the importance of exploring specific types of disability when understanding the role of gender and employment. Further, it is important to note, however, that most of these aspects were not explored in the studies that we reviewed and are areas that deserve attention in future studies. Research shows that females are often comfortable asking for help while males tend to have less favorable attitudes towards help-seeking [80, 81]. Future studies should carefully consider the role of education (i.e., high school completion versus post-secondary completion) when exploring gender, disability, and employment.

Our review showed that gender-related barriers to maintaining employment among youth with disabilities included differences in work injury, physical demands, and work pace for males [71]. These findings are consistent with other research showing that youth with disabilities have slower performance in basic job demands like strength and fine motor skills than youth without disabilities [82]. Females often have issues with poor self-concept, and parental overprotection [30, 75]. For example, a survey of 521 youth with disabilities and parents found that 56% of respondents noted that girls are more likely than boys to be told they must refrain from an activity because it is unsafe [30, 75]. Overprotection of females with disabilities [18, 30, 75], is common and may hinder the development of independent skills that they need to gain employment. Gender role expectations of females often included spending more time on family responsibilities which can be seen as a barrier to gaining and maintaining employment. Such gender role differences and expectations suggest that a different set of transition planning is needed for young women with disabilities compared to men [34]. It was noteworthy that none of the studies mentioned transportation difficulties, which is a common barrier in finding and maintaining employment among youth with disabilities [13].

Gender-related facilitators for maintaining employment included having adequate social and vocational supports, education, and holding a driver’s license. Consistent research shows that social support is an important factor influencing self-efficacy, self-advocacy, and career decision-making [10, 26]. Family involvement especially positive parental involvement is associated with greater transition success [83].

The qualitative studies in our review mostly explored women’s experiences and needs in relation to transition goals and outcomes and showcase the gender-specific barriers (e.g., parental overprotection, gender role expectations, difficulties with self-care and accommodations) and facilitators (e.g., social support, advocacy, early work experience) of young women with disabilities. The findings of the qualitative studies within our review were consistent with the results of the quantitative studies, highlighting how gendered expectations and stereotypes influenced employment. Most of the focus of the quantitative studies was on employment outcomes and not the experience of looking for work or performing duties on the job and how this varied by gender. Future studies should carefully consider the role of age when exploring gender, disability, and employment because age is often associated with increased education, and work-life experience that can assist in getting and maintaining a job [60]. Future research should compare and contrast male and female experiences and also explore men’s experiences in further depth. Further research should be more theoretically informed and aim to have equitable gender representation in their samples.

Conclusions

The findings of this review highlight the critical need for gender-specific vocational supports for youth and young adults with disabilities [33,34,35,36,37,38]. The majority of the studies within our review reported that young men with disabilities had better employment outcomes than women with disabilities. Some (although much fewer) studies found that females with disabilities had better employment outcomes than males. In regards to trends among those who are employed, men with disabilities often work more hours and have better wages compared to women with disabilities. There are several gender-related barriers and facilitators to maintaining employment including social supports and gender roles. Gender issues need to be considered when addressing employment inequity among young people with disabilities [22]. Future studies should include in-depth and qualitative experiences of finding work and experiences within the job.