Disability‐Related Content in Nursing Textbooks

S. Smeltzer, G. Robinson‐Smith, Mary Anne Dolen, J. Duffin, M. Al-maqbali
{"title":"Disability‐Related Content in Nursing Textbooks","authors":"S. Smeltzer, G. Robinson‐Smith, Mary Anne Dolen, J. Duffin, M. Al-maqbali","doi":"10.1043/1536-5026-31.3.148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although the American with Disabilities Act in 1990 mandated that people with disabilities (PWDs) have equal access to facilities and services, men and women with disabilities continue to report receiving inadequate health care. The need to address disability in health professions education, including nursing, has been identified by the U.S. Surgeon General, researchers, and the disability community. This study examined how disability issues are integrated in textbooks commonly used in nursing programs and differences in coverage by seven textbook categories (e.g., medical‐surgical, pediatrics). A total of 33 textbooks used in undergraduate nursing curricula were systematically reviewed for inclusion of disability content using a review grid developed with the input of PWDs. Two researchers independently reviewed each textbook and at least three members of the team developed consensus ratings for each of 224 content items for each textbook. Sums of consensus ratings were calculated for each topic, each textbook, and all seven categories of textbooks. Ratings of each category of disability‐related content were calculated and ranked from highest to lowest. Two investigators reviewed the consensus ratings for each category of book as well as written comments provided during the initial steps of the review. • Analysis revealed that disability‐related content was largely absent from textbooks and categories of textbooks. Although disabling conditions were discussed, issues related to lifelong or preexisting disability were often not addressed. Abuse, a major issue for PWDs, was barely addressed in detail in any of the textbooks. There were significant differences (p = .005) in inclusion of disability‐related content by type of textbook; the highest ranked category was community health. Topics that would be expected in specific categories were often addressed infrequently or not at all. The results of this study suggest the need for faculty members to address disability in their nursing curricula in creative ways until textbook authors and publishers begin to address this issue. The large and growing population of 60 million individuals with disabilities mandates this action.","PeriodicalId":153271,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Education Perspective","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Education Perspective","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1043/1536-5026-31.3.148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

ABSTRACT Although the American with Disabilities Act in 1990 mandated that people with disabilities (PWDs) have equal access to facilities and services, men and women with disabilities continue to report receiving inadequate health care. The need to address disability in health professions education, including nursing, has been identified by the U.S. Surgeon General, researchers, and the disability community. This study examined how disability issues are integrated in textbooks commonly used in nursing programs and differences in coverage by seven textbook categories (e.g., medical‐surgical, pediatrics). A total of 33 textbooks used in undergraduate nursing curricula were systematically reviewed for inclusion of disability content using a review grid developed with the input of PWDs. Two researchers independently reviewed each textbook and at least three members of the team developed consensus ratings for each of 224 content items for each textbook. Sums of consensus ratings were calculated for each topic, each textbook, and all seven categories of textbooks. Ratings of each category of disability‐related content were calculated and ranked from highest to lowest. Two investigators reviewed the consensus ratings for each category of book as well as written comments provided during the initial steps of the review. • Analysis revealed that disability‐related content was largely absent from textbooks and categories of textbooks. Although disabling conditions were discussed, issues related to lifelong or preexisting disability were often not addressed. Abuse, a major issue for PWDs, was barely addressed in detail in any of the textbooks. There were significant differences (p = .005) in inclusion of disability‐related content by type of textbook; the highest ranked category was community health. Topics that would be expected in specific categories were often addressed infrequently or not at all. The results of this study suggest the need for faculty members to address disability in their nursing curricula in creative ways until textbook authors and publishers begin to address this issue. The large and growing population of 60 million individuals with disabilities mandates this action.
护理教科书中与残疾相关的内容
尽管1990年的《美国残疾人法案》(American with Disabilities Act)规定,残疾人(PWDs)在设施和服务方面享有平等的机会,但残疾男性和女性仍然报告称,他们得到的医疗服务不足。美国卫生部长、研究人员和残疾人社区已经确定了在卫生专业教育(包括护理)中解决残疾问题的必要性。本研究考察了残疾问题如何被整合到护理课程常用的教科书中,以及七种教科书类别(例如,内科-外科,儿科)的覆盖范围差异。我们系统地审查了本科护理课程中使用的33本教科书,以纳入残疾内容,使用了一个由残疾人士输入的审查网格。两名研究人员独立审查了每本教科书,团队中至少有三名成员为每本教科书的224个内容项目制定了共识评级。对每个主题、每个教科书和所有7个类别的教科书计算一致评价的总和。计算每一类残疾相关内容的评分,并从高到低进行排序。两名调查人员审查了对每一类书的一致评级,以及在审查的最初步骤中提供的书面评论。•分析显示,与残疾相关的内容在教科书和教科书类别中基本缺失。虽然讨论了致残条件,但与终身或先前存在的残疾有关的问题往往没有得到解决。虐待是残疾人的一个主要问题,在任何教科书中几乎都没有详细说明。不同类型的教科书在收录残疾相关内容方面存在显著差异(p = 0.005);排名最高的类别是社区卫生。应该在特定类别中讨论的主题往往很少或根本没有讨论。这项研究的结果表明,教师需要在他们的护理课程中以创造性的方式解决残疾问题,直到教科书的作者和出版商开始解决这个问题。6000万残疾人这一庞大且不断增长的人口要求采取这一行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信