Accommodations for Students With Disabilities and Associated Barriers in Nursing and Psychiatric Nursing Education: Mixed-Methods Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The experience of disability is often overlooked within equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives in nursing education. Nursing students who self-identify as having a disability or disabilities have reported issues regarding accessibility and accommodations. Nurse educators have reported general uncertainty regarding ways to support students, especially within clinical practice settings. Purpose: The purpose of the study was to investigate the perceptions of nursing and psychiatric nursing students and faculty, with a focus on accommodations and associated barriers. Methods: Mixed-methods research was conducted to answer the following question: What accommodation practices promote or limit the inclusion of nursing and psychiatric nursing students with disabilities in theory and clinical practice settings? Data were collected through an anonymous online survey. A total of 95 responses were included in the analysis. Participants included students in undergraduate degree programs in nursing (n = 21) and psychiatric nursing (n = 22), academic nursing/psychiatric nursing faculty (n = 49), and accessibility professionals (n = 3) in Western Canada. Results: Two main themes were derived from the parallel analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data. The first theme focused on the provision of reasonable accommodations and the second focused on attitudes towards nursing and psychiatric nursing students with disabilities. Students who received accommodations reported that accommodations contributed to their success in the classroom environment (94%), skills lab (86%), and clinical setting (86%). The attitudes of participants towards accommodations were largely favourable. However, barriers to accessing accommodations were noted, mainly within clinical settings. The faculty participants identified lack of knowledge on accommodation processes and a lack of time to implement individual accommodations as a barrier. While the majority (74%) of participants agreed that students with disabilities could meet the theory requirements of professional programs, only half of the participants thought that these students could meet the clinical program requirements. Significant differences in responses were evident between participants who self-identified as having a disability or disabilities and those who did not. Conclusion: The findings highlight the need for effective accommodation processes for nursing students with disabilities, particularly within clinical environments. There is also a need for increased education, support, and resources for faculty to improve their levels of preparedness.
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 | 0.038 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".