A Survey of Family Medicine Department Chairs About Faculty With Disabilities: A CERA Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite 21 million US adults having a disability, little is known about the types of disabilities among faculty in family medicine departments, accommodations used, or work limitations. METHODS: We surveyed family medicine department chairs electronically about the number, types of disabilities encountered, accommodations and associated costs, and attitudes toward family medicine faculty with disabilities. This 10-item survey was part of the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance omnibus survey. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 59% (88/148). Types of disabilities were reported for approximately 50 faculty members by 31 department chairs; only seven knew about the disability at hiring. The most common impairments were mobility, hearing, and mental health problems. Accommodations included adjusting schedules, additional time to meet tasks, and assistive technology. No additional costs were reported for accommodations by about one-third of respondents while costs were over $5,000 for approximately one-quarter. Most chairs reported that faculty performance was similar to peers without disabilities (42.2%) or adequate but not at the level of peers (40%); only one reported inadequate job performance. Faculty members with disabilities appeared to be accepted by peers, patients, learners, and staff, and only two faculty left their program because of the disability. CONCLUSIONS: Most chairs did not report experience with faculty members with disabilities. The disabilities encountered and accommodations were not unusual, but costs were sometimes high. While about half of chairs reported adequate or superior job performance for their faculty with disabilities, a sizeable minority judged such faculty to have poorer performance than peers despite reporting wide acceptance of faculty with disabilities by patients and colleagues. This study raises concerns about potential underreporting by faculty with disabilities and poorer perceived job performance despite wide acceptance and provision of accommodations, sometimes at high cost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".