评估美国医学院网站上的残障内容:一项全国性研究。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Ifeoma Ikedionwu, Kirsten Ludwig, Dominique Cook, Marjorie Fitzsimmons, Allison Liu, Benjamin Case, Eli Falk, Jeanne Farnan, Lisa M Meeks
{"title":"评估美国医学院网站上的残障内容:一项全国性研究。","authors":"Ifeoma Ikedionwu, Kirsten Ludwig, Dominique Cook, Marjorie Fitzsimmons, Allison Liu, Benjamin Case, Eli Falk, Jeanne Farnan, Lisa M Meeks","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>PurposeDespite national calls for disability inclusion in medical education, medical students with disabilities (MSWD) continue to face systemic barriers. One understudied but critical factor is how medical schools publicly communicate their commitment to inclusion, especially through their websites, which often serve as the initial point of reference for prospective applicants. In this research report, the authors evaluate the presence and quality of disability-inclusive content on the websites of U.S. MD-granting medical schools and assess alignment with best practices.MethodFrom May 2023 to July 2023 a cross-sectional content analysis was performed on the websites of all but one U.S. MD-granting medical schools listed in the annual Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Organizational Characteristics Database. Websites were independently reviewed by trained coders using a 5-item rubric based on AAMC and American Medical Association recommendations and scored on 5 themes: (1) disability in diversity statements, (2) accommodations request instructions, (3) affiliation with national MSWD organizations, (4) comprehensive technical standards, and (5) public technical standards. The \"total disability inclusion\" score ranged from 0 to 8.ResultsThe national average disability inclusion score was 5.9/8. Most school websites (96.1%) provided accommodation instructions, but only 38.3% included disability in public diversity statements. Technical standards were publicly available in 92.9% of cases but varied in clarity and accessibility. No significant associations were found between inclusion scores and institutional characteristics, though regional patterns were observed.ConclusionsDespite progress, public messaging on disability inclusion remains inconsistent. Clear, inclusive website content is essential to attract and support MSWD and should be guided by national standards and mechanisms for accountability.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Disability-Inclusive Content on U.S. Medical Schools' Websites: A National Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ifeoma Ikedionwu, Kirsten Ludwig, Dominique Cook, Marjorie Fitzsimmons, Allison Liu, Benjamin Case, Eli Falk, Jeanne Farnan, Lisa M Meeks\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>PurposeDespite national calls for disability inclusion in medical education, medical students with disabilities (MSWD) continue to face systemic barriers. One understudied but critical factor is how medical schools publicly communicate their commitment to inclusion, especially through their websites, which often serve as the initial point of reference for prospective applicants. In this research report, the authors evaluate the presence and quality of disability-inclusive content on the websites of U.S. MD-granting medical schools and assess alignment with best practices.MethodFrom May 2023 to July 2023 a cross-sectional content analysis was performed on the websites of all but one U.S. MD-granting medical schools listed in the annual Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Organizational Characteristics Database. Websites were independently reviewed by trained coders using a 5-item rubric based on AAMC and American Medical Association recommendations and scored on 5 themes: (1) disability in diversity statements, (2) accommodations request instructions, (3) affiliation with national MSWD organizations, (4) comprehensive technical standards, and (5) public technical standards. The \\\"total disability inclusion\\\" score ranged from 0 to 8.ResultsThe national average disability inclusion score was 5.9/8. Most school websites (96.1%) provided accommodation instructions, but only 38.3% included disability in public diversity statements. Technical standards were publicly available in 92.9% of cases but varied in clarity and accessibility. No significant associations were found between inclusion scores and institutional characteristics, though regional patterns were observed.ConclusionsDespite progress, public messaging on disability inclusion remains inconsistent. Clear, inclusive website content is essential to attract and support MSWD and should be guided by national standards and mechanisms for accountability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006133\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006133","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:目的尽管国家呼吁将残疾纳入医学教育,但残疾医学生(MSWD)仍然面临着系统性障碍。一个未被充分研究但至关重要的因素是,医学院如何公开传达他们对包容的承诺,尤其是通过他们的网站,这些网站通常是潜在申请者的最初参考点。在这份研究报告中,作者评估了美国授予医学博士学位的医学院网站上包容残疾人内容的存在和质量,并评估了与最佳实践的一致性。方法从2023年5月至2023年7月,对美国医学院协会(AAMC)年度组织特征数据库中除1所外的所有美国医学博士学位授予医学院的网站进行横断面内容分析。网站由训练有素的编码人员使用基于AAMC和美国医学协会建议的5项标准进行独立审查,并根据5个主题进行评分:(1)多样性声明中的残疾,(2)住宿要求说明,(3)与国家MSWD组织的隶属关系,(4)综合技术标准,(5)公共技术标准。“总残疾包容”得分从0到8分不等。结果全国平均残疾包容评分为5.9/8分。大多数学校网站(96.1%)提供了住宿说明,但只有38.3%在公共多样性声明中包括残疾。92.9%的案例可公开获得技术标准,但在清晰度和可及性方面存在差异。虽然观察到区域模式,但没有发现纳入得分与制度特征之间的显著关联。尽管取得了进展,但关于残疾人包容的公共信息仍然不一致。清晰、包容的网站内容对吸引和支持城市社会福利署至关重要,并应以国家标准和问责机制为指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Disability-Inclusive Content on U.S. Medical Schools' Websites: A National Study.

Abstract: PurposeDespite national calls for disability inclusion in medical education, medical students with disabilities (MSWD) continue to face systemic barriers. One understudied but critical factor is how medical schools publicly communicate their commitment to inclusion, especially through their websites, which often serve as the initial point of reference for prospective applicants. In this research report, the authors evaluate the presence and quality of disability-inclusive content on the websites of U.S. MD-granting medical schools and assess alignment with best practices.MethodFrom May 2023 to July 2023 a cross-sectional content analysis was performed on the websites of all but one U.S. MD-granting medical schools listed in the annual Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Organizational Characteristics Database. Websites were independently reviewed by trained coders using a 5-item rubric based on AAMC and American Medical Association recommendations and scored on 5 themes: (1) disability in diversity statements, (2) accommodations request instructions, (3) affiliation with national MSWD organizations, (4) comprehensive technical standards, and (5) public technical standards. The "total disability inclusion" score ranged from 0 to 8.ResultsThe national average disability inclusion score was 5.9/8. Most school websites (96.1%) provided accommodation instructions, but only 38.3% included disability in public diversity statements. Technical standards were publicly available in 92.9% of cases but varied in clarity and accessibility. No significant associations were found between inclusion scores and institutional characteristics, though regional patterns were observed.ConclusionsDespite progress, public messaging on disability inclusion remains inconsistent. Clear, inclusive website content is essential to attract and support MSWD and should be guided by national standards and mechanisms for accountability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信