Teaching medical students about disability in family medicine. Family Medicine, 41(8), 542-544

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Interagency Office on Disability and Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29203, USA.
Family medicine (Impact Factor: 1.17). 10/2009; 41(8):542-4.
Source: PubMed


We investigated whether a unique didactic focusing on delivering health care to patients with disabilities (PWDs) impacts medical students' knowledge of specific disabilities and related concerns, attitudes about barriers to this populations' health care, and behavior during typical primary care visits with PWDs. A 90-minute session for students during their third-year family medicine clerkship addressed clinical considerations for patients with mobility and cognitive impairments. Questionnaires were administered to students at the beginning and completion of the clerkship. Analyses of 71 matched questionnaires reveal that knowledge and attitudes were positively impacted.

Download full-text


Available from: Catherine Leigh Graham, Feb 12, 2015
13 Reads

  • Medical Education 04/2010; 44(4):332-4. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03558.x · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Instruments to detect changes in attitudes towards people with disabilities are important for evaluation of training programs and for research. While we were interested in instruments specific for medical students, we aimed to systematically review the medical literature for validated survey instruments used to measure attitudes of healthcare students and professionals towards patients with physical disability. We electronically searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Health and Psychosocial Instruments. We included papers reporting on the development and/or validation of survey instruments to measure attitudes of healthcare students and professionals towards patients with physical disability. We excluded papers in which the attitudes were not measured in a provider-patient context. Two reviewers carried out titles and abstracts screening, full texts screening, and data abstraction in a duplicate and independent manner using standardized and pilot tested forms. We identified seven validated survey instruments used for healthcare students and professionals. These instruments were originally developed for the following target populations: general population (n = 4); dental students (n = 1); nursing students (n = 1); and rehabilitation professionals (n = 1). The types of validity reported for these instruments were content validity (n = 3), criterion-related validity (n = 1), construct validity (n = 2), face validity (n = 1), discriminant validity (n = 1), and responsiveness (n = 1). The most widely validated and used tool (ATDP) was developed in the late 1960s while the most recent instrument was developed in the early 1990s. Of the seven identified validated instruments, less than half were specifically designed for healthcare students and professionals and none for medical students. There is a need to develop and validate a contemporary instrument specifically for medical students.
    Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 11/2010; 7(1):55. DOI:10.1186/1743-0003-7-55 · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined predictors of interest in the future provision of clinical services to people with developmental disabilities by Canadian graduate students in psychology. Utilizing a cross-sectional survey, 458 psychology students from clinical, clinical neuropsychology, and counseling psychology programs from across Canada provided information on their interest in working with the population, their formal training experiences within the university, and their experiences outside the university. Formal training in school and informal experiences in the community were significant predictors of students' intention to work with clients with a developmental disability. The implications of these findings for training programs are discussed.
    Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities 11/2010; 3(4):190-201. DOI:10.1080/19315864.2010.524725
Show more