Professional practice placement as a unique challenge for students with disabilities in health and human service educational programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students with disabilities face barriers to full participation in Health and Human Service (HHS) programmes. Few studies have focused on students’ experiences in practice placements, an aspect of HHS programmes which yield unique barriers. This study aimed to understand the barriers that disabled students in HHS programmes experience during practice placements and their perspective of how to better support and accommodate them. Disabled students from 12 HHS programmes at a Canadian university and 14 Canadian occupational therapy programmes were invited to participate in a survey about their placement experiences. Eighty-two students responded to the survey. Of these, eleven volunteered to engage in follow up interviews. Results showed that students with disabilities are navigating accommodation practices that frequently lack communication, clarity, ease of use and are structured in ways that are less conducive to ever-changing practice environments. Students expressed relying on relationships with practice educators and placement coordinators to facilitate their accommodations. However, negative attitudes and stigma complicate these processes. Collaboration across HHS programmes is needed to develop clear and effective placement accommodation procedures. Those who support disabled students in placement should receive education on supporting students with disabilities and legal obligations of accommodation. Students may benefit from advocacy and disclosure skill education.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".