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]

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.)