Non-Medical Help through Disabled Students’ Allowance: experiences and perceived quality of support
At a glance
Non‑Medical Help (NMH), funded through Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA), is human support that some students receive so they can access their studies. The Department for Education (DfE) wanted to understand what good and poor quality NMH looks like across specialist roles, how it supports disabled students with their studies, and how it complements support provided by higher education providers (HEPs). IFF delivered a large-scale mixed-methods study, including a survey of 2,800+ students receiving NMH, 200 in-depth interviews and an online ethnographic study. The research provided DfE with a robust, student-centred evidence base on how NMH operates in practice. Plus, the work used inclusive research practices, with reflections being presented at the 2026 Social Research Association conference.
About the client
DfE oversees children’s services and education in England, covering early years, schools, further education and higher education. Its mission is to improve opportunities, raise standards, protect vulnerable children, and support learners to thrive, working with agencies, educators and local services.
Challenges and objectives
DfE identified a need for student-led evidence about what NMH looks like in practice: what good quality NMH looks like from students’ perspectives, how support is accessed and delivered, and how NMH fits alongside other sources of support such as HEP services.
Ensuring accessibility was a key challenge, given disabled students’ varying access needs, communication preferences and barriers to participation.
Solution
To meet the multiple objectives set out by DfE, the team used a mixed-methods approach, running a survey of over 2,800 disabled students in higher education, 200 in-depth interviews and an online ethnographic study.
IFF ran an initial scoping phase involving 18 interviews with expert advisors, advocacy groups, NMH providers, and disabled student representatives. The learnings and recommendations from this informed the approach.
Accessibility measures were implemented across communications, the online survey, qualitative fieldwork and ethnographic activities. This included using clear, concise and screen‑reader‑compatible communications; designing surveys that reduced cognitive load and were tested across accessibility features; and offering flexible, participant‑led interview arrangements. IFF worked with Disabled Students UK while designing the research materials. The interview topic guide was peer-reviewed to make sure it was accessible and inclusive, and Disabled Students UK provided guidance on accessible interview practice.
These measures ensured that students with a wide range of needs could take part confidently and meaningfully at every stage of the research.
Impact
The findings gave DfE student-focused evidence on what good quality NMH looks like in practice. Key findings showed that effective NMH is characterised by strong relationships, proactive communication, flexibility and tailored support. When delivered well, NMH helped students engage with their studies, manage their workload, develop independence, and, in some cases, enabled them to remain in higher education.
At the same time, the findings highlighted areas for improvement. These included setting clearer expectations about what NMH sessions would involve, more timely access to support, improved flexibility in delivery of support and better tailoring for students with complex needs.
The insights are supporting ongoing policy development, aimed at strengthening NMH provision and improving outcomes for disabled students across higher education.
Later this year, IFF and DfE will present the work at the Social Research Association conference. The presentation will explore how accessible practice was embedded throughout the process, to share our learnings about inclusive research with the wider research community.