Search

Introduction: People with disabilities are underrepresented in higher education, facing systematic obstacles such as inaccessible communication and physical environments and difficulties obtaining accommodations. This study aims to shed light on barriers to accessibility and disability inclusion in research institutions through confidential qualitative interviews with researchers with disabilities. Methods: We recruited participants via virtual flyers. Eligibility criteria included working in the United States (U.S.) as researchers that had applied for grant funding (last five years), and self-identifying as having a disability. We offered participants (total n = 35) the option of either semi-structured one-on-one live or written interviews based on their preference. Two study team members analyzed written and live responses using thematic analysis to identify themes. Results: Themes included identity/visibility, career trajectories, accessibility, accommodations, bias, representation, and inclusion. Some participants reported not disclosing their disabilities at work or during hiring processes due to fear of negative perceptions from peers or potential employers. Experiences around stigma and bias were noted both in professional relationships and when interacting with disability service offices, underscoring difficulties and delays in processes to secure accommodations. Respondents highlighted the lack of disability inclusion and low representation of people with disabilities in academia and elevated the importance of self-advocacy and of role models and mentors in shaping career pathways for future researchers with disabilities. Conclusion: Researchers with disabilities encounter systematic barriers at academic institutions, and lack of acknowledgement and research on these experiences has held back institutional and policy changes. To reduce disparities for researchers with disabilities, academic leadership must allocate resources to address ableism, create more inclusive environments, and raise standards beyond compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective(s): Deaf American Sign Language (ASL) users are subject to health care disparities resulting from communication and language barriers. Currently, few resources on advance care planning and end-of-life care exist in ASL. This study explores Deaf ASL users' perceptions and experiences with end-of-life care and advance care planning. Methods: Semi-structured 1:1 interviews with Deaf signers were translated, and transcribed into English by a bilingual researcher. Investigators inductively coded transcripts and identified themes of barriers, facilitators, knowledge, and sources of information regarding end-of-life care. Participants' knowledge of advance care planning and completion of advance care planning documents were evaluated using a brief assessment. Results: Eleven Deaf ASL users participated in the study with two deaf interviewers. Participants reported barriers to end-of-life care including poor provider communication, inaccessible sources, and inadequate provision of accommodations, leading to patient distrust. Participants' understanding of advance care planning was facilitated by accessible forms of communication and their social networks, such as family, friends, and Deaf peers. Participants primarily gained information on end-of-life care from first-hand familial experience, peers, and media. Participants' mean advance care planning knowledge was 4.6 out of 15 (SD = 2.6). Conclusions: Deaf ASL users face scarce accessible resources around end-of-life care, lowering their ability to understand and proceed with advance care planning. Implementation of ASL accessible advance care planning educational tools in health care settings is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited data to assess, track, or quantify accessibility and disability inclusion across universities. Objective: This cross-sectional study assessed disability inclusion and accessibility at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded undergraduate programs in the United States. We hypothesized that there is no association between NIH funding and the University Disability Inclusion Score. Methods: A novel tool, the University Disability Inclusion Score assessed disability inclusion and accessibility using 10 indicators spanning 4 categories: (1) accessibility of built and virtual environment, (2) public image of disability inclusion, (3) accommodations processes and procedures, and (4) grievance policy. Based upon the total points (out of a total score of 100), each university was assigned a letter grade (A-F). Results: Of the top 50 NIH-funded institutions, 6% received an A grade on the Score, while 60% received D or F. The mean scores were 15.2 (SD = 5) for accessibility of built and virtual environment (20 points), 10 (SD = 3) for public image of disability inclusion (20 points), 30.6 (SD = 10) for accommodations processes and procedures (50 points), and 8.1 (SD = 3) for grievance policy (10 points). Conclusions: Our findings suggest room for improvement in disability inclusion and accessibility among top university recipients of NIH funding. To provide an equitable academic experience, universities must prioritize disability inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graduate medical education (GME) institutions must ensure equal access for trainees with disabilities through appropriate and reasonable accommodations and policies. To date, no comprehensive review of the availability and inclusiveness of GME policies for residents with disabilities exists. We examined institutions' compliance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements and alignment with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) policy considerations. Between June and August 2019, we conducted a directed content analysis of GME institutional policies using the AAMC report on disability considerations and the ACGME institutional requirements as a framework. Of the 47 GME handbooks available for review, 32 (68%) included a disability policy. Forty-one of the 47 (87%) handbooks maintained a nondiscrimination statement that included disability. Twelve of the 32 (38%) handbooks included a specific disability policy and language that encouraged disclosure, and 17 (53%) included a statement about the confidential documentation used to determine reasonable accommodations. Nineteen of the 32 (59%) maintained a clear procedure for disclosing disabilities and requesting accommodations. While disability policies are present in many of the largest GME institutions, it is not yet a standardized practice. For institutions maintaining a disability policy, many lack key elements identified as best practices in the AAMC considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National surveys are important for understanding the disparities that disabled people experience across social determinants of health; however, limited research has examined the methods used to include disabled people in these surveys. This study reviewed nationally representative surveys administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Census Bureau that collected data in the past 5 years and sampled adults ≥18 years. Data from both publicly available online survey documents and a questionnaire emailed to survey administrators were used to determine whether surveys (1) oversampled disabled people, (2) had a data-accessibility protocol to support data collection, and (3) provided multiple data-collection modalities (eg, phone, paper). Of the 201 surveys identified, 30 met the inclusion criteria for the study. Of these 30 surveys, 1 oversampled disabled people, none had a data-collection accessibility protocol, and 21 provided multiple data-collection modalities. This study highlights barriers and opportunities to including disabled people in national surveys, which is essential for ensuring survey data are generalizable to the US population., Competing Interests: Please see ICMJE form(s) for author conflicts of interest. These have been provided as supplementary materials., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Project HOPE - The People-To-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Background: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal public benefit providing food assistance to millions of Americans. However, it is typically administered by states, creating potential variation in accessibility and transparency of information about enrollment for people with disabilities., Objective: To develop and demonstrate the use of a method to assess the accessibility and transparency of information about the disability-inclusive process and practices of SNAP enrollment., Methods: Cross-sectional data was collected from SNAP landing and enrollment webpages from all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and New York City from June-August 2021. Based on principles of universal design and accessibility, scores were determined for each SNAP program across three areas: flexibility in the enrollment process (6 points), efficiency of finding information about enrollment on SNAP websites (6 points), and the accessibility of SNAP webpages (6 points). Total scores were the sum of these sub-categories (18 points maximum)., Results: Of the 52 SNAP programs assessed, mean scores were 10.66 (SD = 2.51) for the total score, 2.67 (SD = 0.91) for flexibility in the enrollment process, 3.32 (SD = 1.19) for efficiency of finding information about enrollment on SNAP websites, and 4.67 (SD = 1.72) for the accessibility of SNAP webpages. No programs received the maximum flexibility score (6 points) on flexibility, 2 programs received the maximum on efficiency, and 31 programs the maximum on accessibility., Conclusions: We found differences in the accessibility, flexibility, and efficiency of SNAP program enrollment information available on SNAP websites and outline room for improvement across all three of these areas., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior research has demonstrated that the needs of the disability community have not been met during public health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing inequities for many populations including people with disabilities, and data is needed to develop inclusive public health response policies., Objective: To identify how COVID-19 has uniquely impacted the lives of adults with disabilities., Methods: 38 participants were recruited through disability advocacy groups and social media. Semi-structured virtual focus groups were conducted with adults (≥18 years) who self-identified as having a disability. Focus groups were conducted for each of six disability sub-groups: vision, hearing, mobility and physical, mental health, cognitive, intellectual, and developmental, and chronic illness. Using inductive coding, major themes were identified and compared across the disability sub-groups., Results: Three major themes and thirteen sub-themes were identified from the focus groups. The three major themes comprised: new problems created by the pandemic, obstacles in daily life that were exacerbated by the pandemic, and broader changes to accessibility and disability identity. Sub-themes such as difficulty with COVID-19 testing and regular medical care were reported by participants of all disability sub-groups, while other sub-themes like direct care needs and medical rationing were reported by participants from a subset of the disability sub-groups., Conclusions: These results indicate how the COVID-19 pandemic unequally impacts disabled people. The participants indicated that to fully address their needs, disability perspectives must be included in the public health pandemic response. As new research shows that COVID-19 can cause long-term disability, the urgency to ensure the disability community is part of public health policies will increase., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest No known conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)