Experiences and recommendations from people with spinal cord injury following participation in a disability education session at an allopathic medical school: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Students in half of US medical schools do not receive formal instruction in providing medical care for people with disabilities. To address this gap in training, our medical school developed several strategies, including a session for second year medical students to address communication skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to delivering healthcare for people with disabilities. Here, our objective was to explore perceptions of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) who participated in the session on its content and structure. METHODS: Qualitative research using a focus group of people with SCI who participated in an educational session for medical students in an LCME accredited allopathic US medical school. A purposive sample of adults with SCI (N = 8) participated in a focus group. Data were analyzed using a six-phase thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants favorably viewed the educational session, felt their participation was valuable, and had suggestions for its improvement. Four major themes were identified: (1) session format, content; (2) addressing student discomfort and avoidance behaviors; (3) increasing student knowledge and preparation; and (4): important lessons from discussions of past and role-played doctor-patient interactions. CONCLUSIONS: First-person input from people with SCI is critical to improve medical education and healthcare provision to the SCI community. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report feedback from stakeholders providing specific recommendations for teaching disabilities awareness to undergraduate medical students. We expect these recommendations to be relevant to the SCI and medical education communities in improving healthcare for people with SCI and other disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".