The good student or the good patient? The barriers encountered by undergraduate medical students with disabilities at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Association of Medical College’s (AAMC) Lived Experience report was released in March 2018 with hopes of broadening the diversity of medical students to include more of those with disabilities (Meeks & Jain, 2018). The authors hoped to generate discussion and study the lived experiences of current medical students, residents and practicing physicians with disabilities to learn about the barriers and supports that they have and continue to encounter along their journeys in medicine. In response to the Meeks & Jain (2018) publication, the purpose of this study was to replicate their study with the research question “What are the barriers encountered by undergraduate medical students with self-identified disabilities at one Northern Ontario medical school?”. The Lived Experience Project provides a unique opportunity to learn about, and compare the experiences of, participants in this study to medical students at one medical school in Northern Ontario (Meeks & Jain, 2018). In doing so, the climate and culture of this school and how this affects the treatment and education of students with disabilities, including the barriers they face in the academic accommodation process, in medical environments and throughout medical school as a whole were explored. A qualitative descriptive study design was used. Data was collected using an initial demographics-based survey followed by a semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. Data was transcribed and analysed using Braun & Clarke Thematic Analysis (2013). It was found that the participants of this study found barriers directly associated with their medical education in addition to barriers indirectly associated with their medical education and finally, barriers outside of medical school. Supports in the lives of participants were also identified as a theme in the current research, suggesting a positive impact in the lives of medical students with disabilities. No barriers specific to being a student in Northern Ontario arose, which may be in part to the nature of the sample and small sample size. Implications for this research include reviews of accommodation policies, revision of technical standards at a national and institutional level as well as strengthened communication between the student, the medical school, faculty, and administration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".