共 50 条
Student-Led Workshop on Disability Advocacy
被引:0
|作者:
Piasecki-Masters, Colette
[1
]
Newcomb, Nora
[2
,3
]
Smeltz, Lydia
[4
]
Bresier, Valerie
[5
]
Rubenstein, Dana
[6
]
Ankam, Nethra
[7
]
Turk, Margaret A.
[8
]
机构:
[1] SUNY Upstate Med Univ, Syracuse, NY USA
[2] Univ South Florida Hlth, Morsani Coll Med, Tampa, FL USA
[3] Lehigh Valley Hlth Network, Lehighton, PA USA
[4] Penn State Coll Med, Hershey, PA USA
[5] Albany Med Coll, Albany, NY USA
[6] Duke Univ, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat & Behav Sci, Durham, NC USA
[7] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Sidney Kimmel Med Coll, Philadelphia, PA USA
[8] SUNY Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Syracuse, NY USA
关键词:
Advocacy;
Disability;
Medical Students;
Trainees;
Physiatry;
Rehabilitation;
HEALTH;
PEOPLE;
D O I:
10.1097/PHM.0000000000002465
中图分类号:
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号:
100215 ;
摘要:
Medical students can be powerful advocates for and in partnership with the disability community, yet opportunities for targeted advocacy training are sparse. In February 2023, a medical student-led workshop on disability advocacy for trainees took place at the Association of Academic Physiatrists' Annual Conference. The aims of this session were for trainees to (1) identify existing gaps in disability education at their institution and in policy around disability-related issues; (2) improve perceived ability to engage in disability-related education and policy-based advocacy; and (3) apply an intersectional lens to identify opportunities for intersectionality in disability advocacy. Presession and postsession responses were anonymously submitted via Qualtrics. Of 31 presurvey respondents, 18 responded to the postsurvey, and 12 were identified as having matching unique identifiers. After the workshop, participants overall were more likely to report being very/somewhat confident about their ability to identify gaps in disability education at their institution (75.0% vs. 100.0%, P = 0.011), policy around disability-related issues (41.7% vs. 100.0%, P < 0.006), and opportunities for intersectionality in disability advocacy (33.3% vs. 91.7%, P < 0.015). Participants were more likely to report being very/somewhat confident in engaging in education-based advocacy (58.3% vs. 100.0%, P = 0.006), policy-based advocacy (16.7% vs. 91.7%, P < 0.002), and intersectional disability advocacy (41.7% vs. 91.7%, P < 0.006). All attendees strongly/somewhat agreed with the statements "I hope that this session will continue in future years" and "I think that other trainees would benefit from a similar course." This session was shown to effectively meet the intended goals of the program.
引用
收藏
页码:e141 / e144
页数:4
相关论文