Evaluating Disability-Inclusive Content on U.S. Medical Schools’ Websites: A National Study

Résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: Despite national calls for disability inclusion in medical education, medical students with disabilities (MSWD) continue to face systemic barriers. One understudied but critical factor is how medical schools publicly communicate their commitment to inclusion, especially through their websites, which often serve as the initial point of reference for prospective applicants. In this research report, the authors evaluate the presence and quality of disability-inclusive content on the websites of U.S. MD-granting medical schools and assess alignment with best practices. METHOD: From May 2023 to July 2023, a cross-sectional content analysis was performed on the websites of all but one U.S. MD-granting medical schools listed in the annual Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Organizational Characteristics Database. Websites were independently reviewed by trained coders using a 5-item rubric based on AAMC and American Medical Association recommendations and scored on 5 themes: (1) disability in diversity statements, (2) accommodations request instructions, (3) affiliation with national MSWD organizations, (4) comprehensive technical standards, and (5) public technical standards. The "total disability inclusion" score ranged from 0 to 8. RESULTS: The national average disability inclusion score was 5.9/8. Most school websites (96.1%) provided accommodation instructions, but only 38.3% included disability in public diversity statements. Technical standards were publicly available in 92.9% of cases but varied in clarity and accessibility. No significant associations were found between inclusion scores and institutional characteristics, though regional patterns were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress, public messaging on disability inclusion remains inconsistent. Clear, inclusive website content is essential to attract and support MSWD and should be guided by national standards and mechanisms for accountability.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.