<![CDATA[Background: Despite robust international and national rights frameworks, disaster risk reduction and management still center on the non-disabled. As climate-related hazards intensify, people with disabilities face a 2–4x higher risk of injury or death, exposing persistent gaps in inclusive planning and service delivery. Objective: To identify and synthesize support services required by PWDs during and after disasters, and to translate these needs into actionable implications for disaster management and risk reduction planners. Method: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from 2000 onward, along with select reports from long-standing international organizations, was conducted using multi-source searches. Eligible studies addressed supports for PWDs across the response and recovery phases. Data were extracted and thematically synthesized. Result: Required supports coalesced into eight domains: health & rehabilitation; accessibility & mobility; communication; participation & governance; social–family support; psychosocial & protection; livelihood & financial assistance; and data & coordination. Conclusion: Disability-inclusive disaster management requires embedding universal design, co-production with PWDs, and guaranteed accessibility across all phases, from warnings and evacuation to long-term recovery. Systems must ensure continuity of care, accessible infrastructure, and accountable governance to reduce disproportionate risk. Originality/Value: This review article consolidates fragmented scientific evidence in the field of disability-inclusive disaster risk reduction and management by synthesizing literature on the spectrum of essential support services needed by persons with disabilities during and after disasters, an area that has remained underexamined. This study maps existing theoretical and methodological gaps while serving as a strategic benchmark, contributing to the development of a planner-ready conceptual framework and guiding future research agendas, particularly concerning intersectional risks, continuity of assistive technology during protracted recovery, and interventions in low-resource settings.]]>
