ABB Factsheet: Invisible Disabilities and the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower Scheme

In this factsheet, we explore what invisible disability is and look at how factors like visual cues, language, social invalidation, medical authority, and intersectional issues can make certain conditions marginalized or invalidated. To address this issue, the Invisible Disabilities Sunflower scheme is discussed as a practical response to invisibility in public spaces. While the scheme aims to facilitate recognition and support without requiring disclosure, it also raises questions regarding visibility, interpretation, and the limits of symbol-based accommodation. Essentially, this refers to support that is provided as soon as a shared symbol is recognized, rather than requiring a person to formally disclose their disability.

What are invisible disabilities?

Invisible disabilities, also known as hidden disabilities, are an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of conditions. These conditions may be temporary or permanent, depending on the context. (Motability, 2024) Many invisible disabilities are also dynamic, meaning that their impact can vary from day to day; on some days, individuals may be less affected than on others. Although invisible disabilities may not be immediately noticeable, they can still have a significant impact on individuals’ lives. Below are some instances of different types of hidden disabilities, along with examples.

● Neurological: Conditions related to the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and nerves (e.g., epilepsy, multiple sclerosis)

● Neurodevelopmental: Conditions related to brain development and the organization of the nervous system (e.g., autism spectrum condition/disorder, ADHD).

● Cognitive: Conditions affecting memory, thinking, or information processing (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease, dementia or neurocognitive impairment due to HIV infection).

● Physical: Conditions affecting bodily functioning that may not be outwardly visible, such as chronic pain, fatigue, or mobility limitations (e.g., fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, autoimmune conditions).

● Mental health: Conditions affecting mood, emotional regulation, or psychological well-being that may not present visible signs (e.g., depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder).

What makes a disability “invisible”?

According to available data, approximately 70–80 percent of disabilities are considered invisible. WHO data from 2023 estimates that around 1.3 billion people worldwide experience significant disability, representing approximately 16 percent of the global population, or about one in six people. (WHO, 2023) Despite the high prevalence and global scale of disability, a paradox remains; many disabilities are invisible. The following sections outline possible reasons for this.

Lack of visible signs of disability

On the surface, not all disabled people appear disabled. Many disabilities do not involve visible indicators of impairment, such as wheelchairs or assistance dogs. This lack of visible indicators means that a disability may not be immediately recognizable to others. (Kelly and Mutebi, 2023). For example, some people with visual or auditory disabilities may not appear disabled because they do not use visible assistive devices, or they use discreet ones.

Terminology and misinterpretation

Invisible disability is also referred to as “hidden,” a term that implies deliberate concealment, while “invisible” may be misread by others as suggesting that the disability does not exist (Liasidou and Liasidou, 2023).

Disbelief and Social Invalidation

Many people with invisible disabilities are disregarded, disbelieved or accused of faking. This creates a tremendous barrier for individuals to disclose their disability and access support.

Invisible disabilities are often invalidated through gendered, moralized characterizations (e.g., being framed as weak, feminine, or unwilling to work). For example, a man diagnosed with fibromyalgia reported being labeled by colleagues and a manager as “an old lady” and an “evader,” with his pain dismissed through sexist remarks questioning his willingness to work (interview with Åke) (Norstedt, 2019).

Medical Authority and Diagnostic Legitimacy

Medical diagnoses carry significant discursive authority in shaping whether a disability is recognized as legitimate. For people with invisible disabilities, the presence or absence of a medically-recognized diagnosis can strongly influence how their experiences are interpreted by employers, institutions, and others. Conditions that are perceived as contested or insufficiently defined within medical frameworks are more likely to be dismissed, questioned, or treated as illegitimate. As a result, diagnostic categories do not merely describe impairment but actively shape disclosure, credibility, and access to support. (Norstedt, 2019)

Intersectional Factors

The exclusion is often multifaceted, with other characteristics such as gender and socio-economic status further affecting the levels of political and institutional participation, especially for women and girls with disabilities, who face compounded marginalization. (Council of Europe, 2022) According to a briefing by the European Disability Forum, (European Disability Forum, 2022) the disparities in full-time employment are stark: • Women with disabilities: Only 20% are in full-time employment. • Men with disabilities: 29% have full-time roles. • Women without disabilities: 48% are employed full-time. • Men without disabilities: 64% have full-time employment.

These figures highlight the compounded marginalization faced by women with disabilities, whose employment rates lag significantly behind not only their non-disabled peers but also men within the same disability group.

The Hidden Disabilities Sunflower Scheme: A Practical Visual Tool to Address the Issue of Visibility

The Hidden Disabilities Sunflower scheme, introduced at Gatwick Airport in 2016 (HDSunflower, no date) and subsequently adopted across the UK, (having since expanded internationally to include 327 airports in 70 countries and 23 airlines worldwide). It provides a discreet visual symbol for indicating invisible disabilities. Sunflower lanyards and cards are intended to signal to public staff (such as those in transport, healthcare, education, and retail) that the wearer may require additional patience or support, without necessitating disclosure of personal medical information. The scheme allows individuals to navigate public spaces with reduced risk of misunderstanding or invalidation, highlighting a practical response to the social and discursive invisibility of certain disabilities.

Perceived benefits and positive feedback

The scheme has been widely adopted by airlines and transport providers, often alongside training delivered in collaboration with non-governmental organizations. This is delivered with the aim of improving staff awareness and facilitating more inclusive travel experiences for people with invisible disabilities. This approach offers several benefits, as reflected in positive feedback from disabled communities (particularly among neurodivergent individuals).

Airports and other public transport hubs are frequently described as overwhelming environments. The Sunflower scheme, however, has been reported to reduce anxiety and facilitate more supportive interactions with staff. Media coverage, such as a review in Condé Nast Traveler, highlights its contribution to a more neuroinclusive travel experience. (Mason, 2025)

Mia, who has dyspraxia, POTS, HSD, and SpLD, shares:

“I don’t have to worry about if someone will believe that I’mdisabled, as the sunflower lanyard acts as a form of proof that I am.”

Kim, who is autistic and has IBS and diverticulosis, describes London Gatwick as a place in which:

“The assisted travel desk was brilliant. The staff recognized the sunflower lanyard, treated me with kindness and patience, and it really transformed my journey for the better.”

Many universities and companies have adopted the Sunflower scheme and provided training for employees to raise awareness of invisible disabilities.

Alex Cramp, a fourth-year Management and Modern Languages student at King’s College London, shares that wearing the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower lanyard has made everyday life on campus more manageable. As someone with dyspraxia, Alex describes the lanyard as a simple but reassuring way to access priority seating and support without having to constantly explain or justify their needs. They note that King’s adoption of the Sunflower scheme, alongside staff training, has helped them feel more recognized and supported around campus. For Alex, the scheme is not just symbolic, but a practical step towards making the university environment more inclusive for students with invisible disabilities. (Cramp, 2023)

Limitations, power dynamics, and contextual constraints The Hidden Disabilities Sunflower scheme allows individuals to discreetly disclose their disabilities in public settings. By doing so, it can reduce immediate misunderstanding and social invalidation that arise from the lack of visible indicators of disability. However, this approach does not extend to broader societal understandings of disability. It does not challenge the underlying able-bodied norms and assumptions that shape how society is organized and how disability is fundamentally understood. It may risk reinforcing the power inequalities by implicitly requiring individuals to disclose, display, or perform vulnerability in order to be deemed deserving of assistance. This dynamic reflects a form of performance-based empathy, in which care is granted only when vulnerability is made legible to others.

These concerns are echoed in an article written by Dr Shara Cohen, titled “Kindness Should Not Need a Lanyard.” Cohen argues that although the Sunflower scheme is well-intentioned and, often effective, it exposes a deeper social problem: empathy and patience have become dependent on visible cues. Drawing on personal experiences, Cohen illustrates how the presence or absence of the lanyard can determine whether individuals are believed, supported, or denied help altogether. The article critiques symbol-dependent compassion, suggesting that it risks normalising unequal access to care and shifting responsibility onto disabled individuals to justify their need for kindness. (Cohen, 2025)

The effectiveness of the scheme also depends on how well it is implemented by institutions. Staff need adequate training to recognise the lanyard, understand its meaning and respond appropriately. Without consistent training and organizational support, the scheme risks becoming largely symbolic, rather than providing meaningful assistance to those with invisible disabilities.

Moreover, the scheme appears to operate differently across settings. In high-pressure, transient environments such as airports or transport hubs, where staff must make rapid judgments with limited interaction, a visible symbol may serve as a pragmatic and efficient tool for facilitating support. However, its use in more stable environments, such as schools or workplaces, raises distinct concerns. In these contexts, sole reliance on a visual marker may substitute for dialogue, mutual understanding, and structural accommodation. Responsibility is placed on individuals to signal their needs, rather than on institutions to proactively adapt their environments and practices.

Conclusion

In this factsheet, we’ve looked at how disabilities are rendered invisible by factors like visual cues, language, social invalidation, medical authority, and intersectionality. From this perspective, the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower scheme acts as a practical tool that helps reduce misunderstandings and social friction in public spaces. While many in the disability community find this tool helpful, some advocates within the community feel that using such symbol-based tools makes them feel self-conscious. They reflect that empathy should not be based on a symbol alone. However, we should not diminish the efforts of the Sunflower scheme; for many, it has provided a way to feel at ease when seeking support, helping them navigate public spaces without the need for long explanations or the fear of being misunderstood. It is important to note that a lanyard only offers ‘in-the-moment’ recognition; it doesn’t automatically fix the deeper barriers in our society. By relying so heavily on a visual symbol, we risk placing the burden on disabled individuals to ‘prove’ their needs, rather than asking institutions to change their environments. Instead, we should find ways to challenge the narratives surrounding disability (whether invisible or visible). This involves wider discussions around intersectionality, as increasing conversation and involvement is the essential next step to deepening empathy and fostering true inclusion.