Search

Introduction Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) provides a path for individuals who are undocumented to join the physician workforce. Indeed, recipients of DACA can play an important role in addressing health inequities in medicine. Although DACA has been in place since 2012, many medical schools remain unaware of it or are hesitant to consider recipients for admission. In a similar vein, the premedical community, including those with DACA status, may be unaware of their eligibility and the steps necessary to pursue medicine. Further education and outreach are needed to achieve institutional policies conducive to the inclusion and success of those undocumented in medicine. Methods We created an hour-long workshop to empower learners with key knowledge relevant to DACA policy and its impact on medicine. We evaluated the workshop through pre- and postworkshop questionnaires assessing participant knowledge and attitudes based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Results A total of 112 participants engaged in our workshop. Ninety-one pretests and 61 posttests were completed by attendees. Data revealed a significant increase in performance on all knowledge-based and TPB questions, including intention to participate in future policy development. Moreover, participants reported appreciating the interactive nature of the session and expressed feelings of empowerment by their newfound knowledge base. Discussion This workshop provides a promising foundation from which conversations and progress regarding DACA-related medical education policy can begin. Specifically, the workshop engages participants in the process of identifying actionable steps for overcoming barriers to inclusion and support.

Introduction Patients with disabilities face health disparities, and providers with disabilities confront professional roadblocks and institutional bias. Yet their experiences are often excluded from medical education, and few case studies address culturally humble care for those with disabilities. Methods We created two 1-hour case-based modules on disability and ableism from patient and provider perspectives. Modules were piloted in June 2020 and presented at two conferences in April 2021. Modules included a prereading, introductory disability presentation, and facilitated case discussions. Sessions were evaluated with pre- and/or postsession surveys. Modules were rated on 5-point Likert scales for educational value, professional growth contribution, and interactive/engaging design. Results Participants rated the patient and provider modules 4.5, 4.4, and 4.4 and 4.5, 4.4, and 4.5 for the three categories, respectively. Participants noted that the sessions were insightful and validating and improved their understanding of ableism and the importance of disability curricula. There were significant improvements in participants’ perceptions of ability to discuss ableism's impacts, recognize barriers, identify resource/support gaps for trainees, and advocate. A total of 171 participants completed our modules, with survey response rates of 38% (60 out of 160) and 48% (77 out of 160) for one conference and a postsurvey response rate of 64% (seven out of 11) for the second. Discussion Designed for health care trainees, providers, administration, and staff, our sessions introduced concepts of ableism, accommodation, and health care barriers. Our results suggest the modules can contribute to professional growth, understandings of ableism, and participants’ disability advocacy tool kit.

Introduction Individuals with disabilities (approximately 20% of the population) experience discrimination and health disparities. Medical school must equip students with expertise to care for patients with disabilities and to identify ableism. Yet, few schools provide curricula that offer a sociopolitical lens for understanding this topic. We developed a disability and ableism curriculum to address this gap. Methods We developed a mandatory 2-hour session for first-year medical students at University of California San Francisco. Activities included: privilege awareness, student-led discussions, and intervention brainstorming for overcoming health care barriers/biases. The session was evaluated through pre/postsurveys, as well as a follow-up survey 1 year later. Results In feedback collected during 2018 and 2019, students described the session as meaningful and relevant. Faculty facilitators reported that the session provoked powerful student-centered learning, leadership, and widespread participation. On average the students rated the session 4.6 on a 5-point scale. Pre- and postsession data analysis indicated significant increases in students' self-reported understanding of ableism (p < .001) and confidence in assessing barriers to care for patients with disability (p < .001). One year later, students reported that the session had influenced their conceptualization of providing care to patients with disabilities. Discussion Through innovative and participatory activities, this small-group session introduced students to important topics such as ableism, the social model of disability, disability history and culture, and health disparities. Our work suggested that creating curricula to equip students with structural frameworks for understanding disability—a topic underrepresented in medical curricula—stimulated student interest and commitment.