Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

Desired Educational Outcomes of Disability-Related Training for the Generalist Physician: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Skills

Minihan, Paula M. PhD, MPH; Robey, Kenneth L. PhD; Long-Bellil, Linda M. PhD, JD; Graham, Catherine L. MEBME; Hahn, Joan Earle PhD; Woodard, Laurie MD; Eddey, Gary E. MDon behalf of the Alliance for Disability in Health Care Education

doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182264a25
Disabilities Medicine Education

The problems adults with disabilities face obtaining quality primary care services are persistent and undermine national efforts to improve the health status of this group. Efforts to address this issue by providing disability-related training to physicians are hampered by limited information about what generalist physicians need to know to care for patients with disabilities. The authors consider the desired outcomes of disability-related training for generalists by exploring the contributions of the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and skills to patient-directed behavior and summarizing the empirical data.

Because disability reflects a complex interplay among individual, interpersonal, institutional, community, and societal factors, generalist physicians can promote and protect the health of adults with disabilities by interventions at multiple levels. Thus, the authors use the social-ecological framework, an approach to health promotion that recognizes the complex relationships between individuals and their environments, to delineate the recommended knowledge, attitudes, and skills in the context of primary care. The importance of role models who demonstrate the three domains, the interactions among them, and issues in evaluation are also discussed. This clear delineation of the recommended educational outcomes of disability-related training in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and skills will support efforts to better prepare generalist physicians—in training and in practice—to care for adults with disabilities and to evaluate these training strategies.

Dr. Minihan is assistant professor, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

Dr. Robey is director, Matheny Institute for Research in Developmental Disabilities, Matheny Medical and Educational Center, Peapack, New Jersey, and assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey.

Dr. Long-Bellil is assistant professor, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts.

Ms. Graham is rehabilitation engineer, University of South Carolina School of Medicine Interagency Office of Disability and Health, Columbia, South Carolina.

Dr. Hahn is associate professor, Department of Nursing, College of Health and Human Services, Durham, New Hampshire.

Dr. Woodard is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida.

Dr. Eddey is chief medical officer, Matheny Medical and Educational Center, Peapack, New Jersey, and clinical associate professor, Department of Pediatrics, UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey.

The Alliance for Disability in Health Care Education is a collaborative network of health care educators promoting the inclusion of disability-related experiences in health care curricula.

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Minihan, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, 136 Harrison Ave., Boston, MA 02111; telephone: (617) 636-2461; e-mail:

First published online July 21, 2011.

Editor's Note: A commentary on this article appears on page 1069.

Quality primary care is a critical linchpin in efforts to improve the health status of persons with disabilities (PWDs) and is a national goal articulated in Healthy People 2010.1 The problems PWDs face finding and accessing primary care services, first “formally recognized as a deficiency in the health care system” in 1989,2 persist to this day.3–5 Providing disability-related training to physicians in the adult generalist specialties (i.e., family medicine and general internal medicine) is essential to support these physicians' efforts to manage the care of patients with disabilities, but there is limited information about what generalist physicians need to know to guide training initiatives.

For adults with disabilities, problems have been reported at multiple levels of the primary care experience. These include problems at the level of the medical interview itself, such as failures in communication that interfere with medical history taking, compromise patients' understanding of treatment regimens and risks, and detract from patient satisfaction6–18; inattention to patients' concerns about maintaining daily activities11; and difficulties accommodating patients who require more time for office visits.2,11,12,17 It also includes accessibility and attitudinal barriers that interfere with the timely provision and completeness of physical examinations, diagnostic procedures, and screening and preventive services,2,8,9,12,18,19 and practice operations that fail to anticipate and prepare for disability-related issues in advance of visits.17,18 Problems with the delivery and financing of health care services nationwide exacerbate the challenges generalist physicians face in meeting the needs of adults with disabilities.20 Generalist physicians caring for children with disabilities face similar challenges, but they generally derive support from the organized network of services in place for children with disabilities through school systems and more robust health insurance benefits. The network of services and supports in place to promote the health of children with disabilities is not available to adults with disabilities or their physicians.

In this article, we use Bloom's21 taxonomy to explore the desired educational outcomes of disability-related training in the pursuit of an optimal primary care experience for adults with disabilities. Bloom's taxonomy refers to a framework for understanding and conceptualizing the realms of educational outcomes based on three domains: cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitudes and values), and psychomotor (skills). This framework is used widely in the health care education literature, including studies and commentaries focused on disability-related training.22–28 A clearer delineation of desired disability-related training outcomes is essential to efforts to better prepare generalist physicians to care for adults with a range of disabilities—congenital or acquired; physical, intellectual, or psychiatric—and to evaluate training strategies for doing so. This article is based on the literature and on our own experiences teaching medical students about the needs of patients with disabilities. Our group, the Alliance for Disability in Health Care Education, includes medical educators and other health professions educators, some of whom bring their personal and professional experiences living with disability to this discussion, including their experiences as primary care patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Definition of disability

In our work, we use Iezzoni's11 (p977) definition of disability: “difficulty performing daily activities and fulfilling social roles because of physical, sensory, emotional, or cognitive impairment, often compounded by environmental barriers.” This definition combines the essence of the biomedical definition of disability with the more contemporary social model. The former emphasizes personal characteristics, such as medical conditions and impairments, and the need to fix them. The latter considers an individual's ability to function in the presence of an impairment to be determined largely by his or her physical and social environment, and seeks to optimize individual functioning by changes at the institutional, community, and societal levels. One's definition of disability influences the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that are viewed as prerequisites for the optimal care of patients with disabilities. The perspective on disability that generalist physicians hold may influence how patients with disabilities view their physicians and, ultimately, those patients' perceptions of the acceptability of the care they receive.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Meeting the primary care needs of persons with disabilities

PWDs have the same needs for clinical prevention and health promotion services, acute care, and care for common chronic conditions as persons without disabilities.20,29 Some PWDs have special needs that are specific to their primary impairment or medical condition or that reflect a “thinner margin of health”20,30 and make them susceptible to preventable secondary conditions and medical complications.20,29,31 Some also face health risks because it is more difficult to engage in healthy behaviors, such as regular physical activity and healthful diets.20 Healthy lifestyles are particularly important now that many more PWDs live to average life spans, increasing their risk for common chronic conditions associated with the aging process as well as with their primary conditions.31,32

Most medical educators agree that technical competence is a necessary component of what the generalist physician should know about patients with disabilities, but technical skills alone are not sufficient to provide high-quality primary care to PWDs.33,34 In two core disability curricula designed for medical schools in Australia26 and Britain,35 a greater number of attitudinal topic areas were deemed essential than were topic areas related to knowledge or skills. More recently, Kirschner and Curry36 proposed six core competency areas to guide the development of disability-related learning objectives in health professions curricula. These core competencies emphasize the acquisition of knowledge and skills.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Desired Educational Outcomes

The social definition of disability reflects a complex interplay between the individual and his or her social and physical environment. Because efforts to promote and protect the health of PWDs are optimally approached from the combined social and physical perspective, we use the social-ecological framework to consider the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that generalist physicians should possess to care for patients with disabilities.37 The social-ecological framework is a health planning model that is predicated on the belief that optimal health reflects individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and public policy influences. It fits well with the social definition of disability, and may be useful to physicians who are unfamiliar with this definition. See Figure 1 for an illustration of this framework.

Figure 1

Figure 1

This framework assumes that generalist physicians have the potential to optimize the health status of patients with disabilities through interventions at multiple levels, but that doing so requires not only knowledge but also appropriate attitudes and skills.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Within medical education, knowledge encompasses the sciences fundamental to medical practice and their clinical applications and is evaluated by the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE).38 It is encouraging that the content descriptions for USMLE Step 1 (basic science knowledge) and USMLE Step 2 CK (clinical knowledge) list developmental disabilities and other disability-related content, respectively.

Empirical data describing what health providers know about the care of patients with disabilities are limited, although evidence suggests that a lack of knowledge is a problem.20,36,39–44 For the purpose of this discussion, we include the issues presented in List 1 within the realm of knowledge.

List 1 Knowledge Components of Disability-Related Generalist Training

List 1 Knowledge Components of Disability-Related Generalist Training

Although knowledge provides a foundation on which to build an understanding of problematic issues and for the development of solutions to those issues, research has shown that enhancing knowledge is not sufficient for influencing behavior.45 If our end goal is to influence the behaviors of generalist physicians in training and in practice, didactic instruction aimed at imparting knowledge is a necessary but perhaps insufficient modality. Fortunately, medical education is not concerned solely with imparting knowledge.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Studies have examined various health professions students' attitudes regarding disability following disability-related educational interventions.8,46–52 Generally, these studies report that, without intervention, student attitudes toward PWDs do not support positive patient–provider interactions, albeit with some exceptions.22 Studies regarding the quality of life of PWDs report wide variations in the attitudes reported by physicians compared with the attitudes of PWDs.17,23 Research has demonstrated that direct and positive exposure to a disfavored or marginalized group (i.e., exposure in which members of that group are viewed as capable, likable, etc.) increases positive attitudes toward that group. Recent research suggests that these positive exposures can favorably influence even those deeply entrenched and implicit (i.e., unconscious) biases that are sometimes assumed to be intractable.53 This suggests that training programs, in order to substantially affect deeply held attitudes toward PWDs, should include substantial positive contact with such persons. Such positive exposure is found in some existing programs.8,22,52,54

Such contact should not be limited only to courses focusing on the interpersonal aspect of medicine. In one study, medical students who were asked for suggestions about disability-related training viewed the presence of PWDs in hard science courses, where they discussed physiological aspects of their conditions and the impact on their lives, as providing compelling and memorable lessons.15 In contrast, these students felt that adding disability as another patient attribute deserving empathy to courses viewed as “touchy feely” may hinder rather than help awareness of disability-related issues, perhaps reflecting what might be a broader lack of appreciation for courses intended to promote humanistic practice. It is worth noting, however, that these same students reported that such courses proved valuable later in their education as they began learning to take histories and conduct physical examinations. These students preferred interacting with real patients to exercises where students themselves were asked to simulate the experience of having a disability (i.e., through use of a wheelchair, blindfolds, etc.)55; others have found simulation exercises to be valuable.34,39 It is also possible to incorporate more ongoing contact with PWDs through home visits, following specific patients, and other approaches.39 We propose including the elements in List 2 within the attitudinal domain.

List 2 Attitudinal Components of Disability-Related Generalist Training

List 2 Attitudinal Components of Disability-Related Generalist Training

Back to Top | Article Outline


For the purpose of this discussion, skills are defined as technical or social competencies that are reflected in observable actions. Studies evaluating physicians' skills with patients with disabilities seem limited and focused largely on the effectiveness of their communication skills; findings suggest deficiencies in this area.14 Skills to communicate effectively with PWDs are high on the lists of requisite disability-related competencies generated by health profession educators.6,8,9,14,16,17,40,54,56,57 Another important skill is the assessment of a patient's level of functioning. This skill enables a physician to establish a baseline for the tracking of progressive impairments (or identifying the presence of associated or secondary conditions), predicting prognoses and planning interventions, such as referral to physical therapy or for assistive devices such as a wheelchair.58 In addition, the assessment of function can be useful for administrative purposes, including those that are intrinsic to medical treatment, such as documenting the need for certain services,58 and those that may assist the individual in obtaining needed resources, such as Social Security benefits or medical assistance. We do not know of any studies evaluating physicians' skills in assessing the functional levels of patients with disabilities. We propose the elements in List 3 to be within the realm of requisite skills.

List 3 Skill Components of Disability-Related Generalist Training

List 3 Skill Components of Disability-Related Generalist Training

Back to Top | Article Outline

The importance of role models

Although didactic presentation of information is helpful in the development of some of these skills, additional direct demonstration and practice are likely necessary. Physician shadowing or clinic-based experiences that involve observed and/or direct contact with patients, or standardized patient exercises in which skill-related challenges are presented in a controlled context, are critical.59 In addition, senior and more experienced physicians are important sources of influence for students and early practitioners by transmitting knowledge and demonstrating attitudes and skills. To the extent that they display appropriate competencies when treating patients with disabilities, they can be powerful agents of change.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Knowledge, attitudes, and skills as interacting dimensions

Knowledge, attitudes, and skills do not act independently. A training program might contribute a skill, such as the ability to position a patient with a physical disability for a physical examination, to a student's “toolkit.” That skill will only be put into practice, however, in the presence of attitudes that prompt the student to use it. Similarly, a training program might impart knowledge, such as the array of conditions associated with a primary disabling condition, but that knowledge will not be useful without well-practiced skills in clinical interviewing or physical examination with patients with disabilities. Students' and physicians' awareness of their lack of knowledge and skills necessary to work with patients with disabilities is associated with discomfort19,23 and may perhaps be one source of negative attitudes toward such patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Evaluation of Disability-Related Training

In any educational endeavor, the measurement of educational outcomes is necessary to ensure that the impact of training is well understood and that this information is used to improve the intervention. Strategies exist within each of Bloom's educational domains to measure the outcomes of disability-related training, although the application of these strategies is in its infancy.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Written or oral assessment of the attainment and retention of information is an appropriate strategy to measure learner knowledge gain. One example here might be the use of a written test to assess students' understanding of associated medical conditions that commonly accompany primary disabling conditions, or of laws, regulations, and policies concerning availability and accessibility of health care for PWDs. Knowledge can also be assessed through observation of practical application of information gained as the student encounters patients in real or simulated clinical situations.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The measurement of attitude change, although often used in evaluating training regarding special populations or those in which health disparities exist, might be somewhat less straightforward. Although there are scales designed to measure the attitudes of other medical professionals,60,61 there is currently no known validated scale designed specifically for measuring the attitudes of medical students toward PWDs.62 Many of the validated scales available are either quite dated63–67 or measure relatively broad attitudes toward PWDs, with their direct applicability to physicians' attitudes toward their patients not clearly established.68,69 A more vexing problem with attitude measurement is the tendency to respond to attitude scale items in the way that the respondent perceives is expected by faculty, or based on differences between consciously recognized attitudes and those unrecognized attitudes that also drive behavior. Tests of implicit (i.e., unconscious) attitudes are intended to address these problems in attitude measurement, and implicit tests of attitudes regarding disability have been offered,70 including one that assesses health care workers' unconscious attitudes toward patients with developmental disabilities.71 Their reliability and validity as measures of attitude change, however, are not yet fully established.

Back to Top | Article Outline


A student's attainment of skills can be measured through direct observation of the student's performance in either real or simulated encounters with patients (e.g., OSCEs). This would include such activities as conducting a medical history72 or going through the sequence of steps to transfer a patient from a wheelchair to an examination table.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Behavioral change in practice.

In evaluating efforts to teach medical students and physicians in training about disability, it is important to assess progress toward the end goal: change in actual behaviors toward patients with disabilities that last into the student's professional life. Some interventions intended to influence the behavior of physicians toward patients with disabilities might show some impact in the short term but without lasting effects.73 It is much easier to evaluate changes in behaviors following a disability-related educational intervention while the student is enrolled in the training program and is, if not a “captive audience,” at least easily accessible.74 Changes in behavior can be studied in a controlled context (such as a standardized patient),8,42,74 or they can potentially be studied in the context of supervised practice, such as during rotations or internships. Evaluation of the long-term impact of disability-related training among practicing professionals is generally not available. Nonetheless, avenues of assessing longer-term impact on behaviors in posttraining professional practice must be pursued.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Educating Physicians for the Benefit of All Patients

It is important that adults with disabilities each have at least one physician who focuses on the whole patient within the context of an ongoing, long-term relationship. In most situations, this physician would practice a generalist specialty, optimally working in coordination with subspecialty physicians and allied health professionals who might also be involved with the patient's care, yet such coordination presents logistical and financial challenges, in addition to the challenges inherent in the direct provision of care.

For adults with disabilities, practice supports can be particularly effective. However, the lack of universal education requirements and uncertainty about the desired outcomes of disability-related training in the context of primary care may inhibit support for training initiatives designed to support quality primary care for PWDs. Lack of knowledge about the universe of practice supports for patients with disabilities and their potential impact on patient care may similarly hamper support for practice support provisions. The “knowledge, attitudes, and skills” framework we have proposed encompasses both training and practice support elements.

Under current, less-than-ideal circumstances, we believe that disability-related training is appropriate at all levels of health care education and practice and suggest that, given the historical lack of such training, even residents and the most seasoned generalist physicians could benefit from exposure to the most basic information (knowledge), to positive interactions with persons who have disabilities (attitudes), and to the opportunities to become more proficient in their interactions (skills). Optimally, these efforts would occur within a context of “substantial rethinking” of physician training and not simply through the addition of a few disability awareness courses.23

Generalist physicians have an important role to play in managing the ongoing health care of adults with disabilities and improving the overall health status of this group, but they have received limited attention in discussions about the disability-related training needs of physicians. The central focus of this article is on improving educational outcomes of the generalist physicians who face unique responsibilities and challenges in providing supports for PWDs by suggesting a comprehensive list of knowledge, attitudes, and skills to shape training and curricula. This approach is in keeping with the current emphasis within medical education on the use of competencies, or knowledge, attitudes, and skills, to guide curricular development and evaluation strategies. Ultimately, our goal is to influence the behaviors of generalist physicians, in particular their posttraining behaviors toward patients with disabilities, by providing training to increase their knowledge, broaden their attitudes, and enhance their skills. Although measurable attainments in knowledge, attitudes, and skills are indeed desired outcomes, the integration of these into behaviors and practices that improve the health of PWDs is the essential and definitive outcome.

Back to Top | Article Outline



Back to Top | Article Outline

Other disclosures:


Back to Top | Article Outline

Ethical approval:

Not applicable.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.
2 Gans BM, Mann NR, Becker BE. Delivery of primary care to the physically challenged. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:S-15–S-19.
3 U.S. Public Health Service. Closing the Gap: A National Blueprint for Improving the Health of Individuals With Mental Retardation. Report of the Surgeon General's Conference on Health Disparities and Mental Retardation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2002.
4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Improve the Health and Wellness of Persons With Disabilities. Accessed May 24, 2011.
5 Nichols AD, Ward RL, Freedman RI, et al. Left out in the Cold: Health Care Experiences of Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Massachusetts. Waltham, Mass: The ARC; 2008.
6 Barnett S. Communication with deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A guide for medical education. Acad Med. 2002;77:694–700. Accessed May 25, 2011.
7 Ebert DA, Heckerling PS. Communication with deaf patients—Knowledge, beliefs, and practices of physicians. JAMA. 1995;273:227–229.
8 Eddey GE, Robey KL, McConnell JA. Increasing medical student's self-perceived skill and comfort in examining persons with severe developmental disabilities: The use of standardized patients who are nonverbal due to cerebral palsy. Acad Med. 1998;73(suppl 10):S106–S108.,_CONFIDENCE,_AND_CLINICAL_SKILLS_.61.aspx. Accessed May 25, 2011.
9 Iezzoni LI. What should I say? Communication around disability. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:661–665.
10 Iezzoni LI. Make no assumptions: Communication between persons with disabilities and clinicians. Assist Technol. 2006;18:212–219.
11 Iezzoni LI. Going beyond disease to address disability. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:976–979.
12 Iezzoni LI, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Siebens H. Mobility impairments and use of screening and preventive services. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:955–961.
13 Iezzoni LI, Davis RB, Soukup J, O'Day B. Quality dimensions that most concern people with physical and sensory disabilities. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2085–2092.
14 Iezzoni LI, O'Day BL, Killeen M, Harker H. Communicating about health care: Observations from persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:356–362.
15 Iezzoni LI, Ramanan RA, Drews RE. Teaching medical students about communicating with patients who have sensory or physical disabilities. Disabil Stud Q. 2005;25(1). Accessed May 24, 2011.
16 Iezzoni LI, Ramanan RA, Lee S. Teaching medical students about communicating with patients with major mental illness. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:1112–1115.
17 Morrison EH, George V, Mosqueda L. Primary care for adults with physical disabilities: Perceptions from consumer and provider focus groups. Fam Med. 2008;40:645–651.
18 O'Day BL, Killeen M, Iezzoni LI. Improving health care experiences of persons who are blind or have low vision: Suggestions from focus groups. Am J Med Q. 2004;19:193–200.
19 Andriacchi R. Primary care for persons with disabilities. The internal medicine perspective. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;76(suppl):S17–S20.
20 DeJong G, Palsbo SE, Beatty PW. 1. The organization and financing of health services for persons with disabilities. Milbank Q. 2002;80:261–301.
21 Bloom BS. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York, NY: Longmans Green; 1956.
22 Andrew NR, Siegel BS, Politch L, Coulter D. Teaching medical students about children with disabilities. Pediatric Educ. 1998;4:307–316.
23 Basnett I. Health care professionals and their attitudes toward decisions affecting disabled people. In: Albrecht GL, Seelman KO, Bury M, eds. Handbook of Disability Studies. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2001:450–467.
24 Kahtan S, Inman C, Haines A, Holland P. Teaching disability and rehabilitation to medical students. Med Educ. 1994;28:386–393.
25 Kitchener BA, Jorm AF. Mental health first aid training for the public: Evaluation of effects on knowledge, attitudes and helping behavior. BMC Psychiatry. 2002;2:10.
26 Lennox N, Diggens J. Knowledge, skills and attitudes: Medical schools' coverage of an ideal curriculum on intellectual disability. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 1999;24:341–347.
27 Miller TE, Booraem C, Flowers JV, Iversen AE. Changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior as a result of a community-based AIDS prevention program. AIDS Educ Prev. 1990;2:12–23.
28 Young DR, Haskell WL, Taylor CB, et al. Effect of community health education on physical activity knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. The Stanford Five-City Project. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;144:264–274.
29 DeJong G. Primary care for persons with disabilities—An overview of the problem. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;76(suppl):S2–S8.
30 Pope A, Tarlov A, eds; Institute of Medicine. Disability in America: Toward a National Agenda for Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991.
31 Burns TJ, Batavia AI, Smith QW, DeJong G. Primary health care needs of persons with physical disabilities: What are the research and service priorities? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990;71:138–143.
32 Janicki MP, Dalton AJ, Henderson CM, Davidson PW. Mortality and morbidity among older adults with intellectual disability: Health services considerations. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:284–294.
33 Bowers B, Esmond S, Lutz B, Jacobson N. Improving primary care for persons with disabilities: The nature of expertise. Disabil Soc. 2003;18:443–455.
34 Conill A. Living with disability: A proposal for medical education. JAMA. 1998;279:83.
35 Wells TP, Byron MA, McMullen SH, Birchall MA. Disability teaching for medical students: Disabled people contribute to curricular development. Med Educ. 2002;36:788–792.
36 Kirschner KL, Curry RH. Educating health care professionals to care for patients with disabilities. JAMA. 2009;302:1334–1335.
37 Sallis JF, Owen N. Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education—Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2002:462–484.
38 United States Medical Licensing Examination. Test content and practice materials. Accessed May 25, 2011.
39 Crotty M, Finucane P, Ahern M. Teaching medical students about disability and rehabilitation: Methods and student feedback. Med Educ. 2000;34:659–664.
40 Graham CL, Brown RS, Zhen H, McDermott S. Teaching medical students about disability in family medicine. Fam Med. 2009;41:542–544.
41 Holder M, Waldman HB, Hood H. Preparing health professionals to provide care to individuals with disabilities. Int J Oral Sci. 2009;1:66–71.
42 Jacobson EW, Gammon W. Using standardized-patient instructors to teach students about the needs of patients with disabilities. Acad Med. 1997;72:442. Accessed May 25, 2011.
43 Oshima S, Kirschner KL, Heinemann A, Semik P. Assessing the knowledge of future internists and gynecologists in caring for a woman with tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:1270–1276.
44 Phillips A, Morrison J, Davis RW. General practitioners' educational needs in intellectual disability health. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2004;48:142–149.
45 Morrison DM, Baker SA, Gillmore MR. Sexual risk behavior, knowledge, and condom use among adolescents in juvenile detention. J Youth Adolesc. 1994;23:271–288.
46 Campbell FK. Medical education and disability studies. J Med Humanit. 2009;30:221–235.
47 Duckworth SC. The effect of medical education on the attitudes of medical students towards disabled people. Med Educ. 1988;22:501–505.
48 Paris MJ. Attitudes of medical students and health-care professionals toward people with disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:818–825.
49 Ralston E, Zazove P, Gorenflo DW. Physicians' attitudes and beliefs about deaf patients. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1996;93:167–173.
50 Robey K, Gwiazda J, Morse J. Nursing students' self-attributions of skill, comfort, and approach when imagining themselves caring for persons with physical impairments due to developmental disability. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2001;13:361–371.
51 Tervo R, Azuma S, Palmer G, Redinius P. Medical students' attitudes toward persons with disability: A comparative study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1537–1542.
52 Thompson T, Emrich K, Moore G. The effect of curriculum on the attitudes of nursing students toward disability. Rehabil Nurs. 2003;28:27–30.
53 Rudman LA, Ashmore RD, Gary ML. “Unlearning” automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81:856–868.
54 Minihan PM, Bradshaw YS, Long LM, et al. Teaching about disability: Involving patients with disabilities as medical educators. Disabil Stud Q. 2004;24(4). Accessed May 24, 2011.
55 Burgstahler S, Doe T. Disability-related simulations: If, when, and how to use them. Rev Disabil Stud. 2004;1:4–17.
56 Eddey GE, Robey KL. Considering the culture of disability in cultural competence education. Acad Med. 2005;80:706–712. Accessed May 25, 2011.
57 Shakespeare T, Iezzoni LI, Grace NE. The art of medicine—Disability and the training of health professionals. Lancet. 2009;374:1815–1816.
58 Iezzoni LI. When Walking Fails. Addressing Mobility Problems of Adults With Chronic Conditions. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press; 2003.
59 Stoeckle JD, Ronan L, Ehrlich C, Roberts D. The uses of shadowing the doctor—and patient: On seeing and hearing their work of care. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:561–563.
60 Lee MM, Sonis AL. An instrument to assess dental students' attitudes toward the handicapped. Spec Care Dentist. 1983;3:117–123.
61 Dunn ME, Umlauf RL, Mermis BJ. The rehabilitation situations inventory: staff perception of difficult behavioural situations in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;73:316–319.
62 Lam WY, Gunukula SK, McGuigan D, Isaiah N, Symons AB, Akl EA. Validated instruments used to measure attitudes of healthcare students and professionals towards patients with physical disability: A systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010;7:55. Accessed May 24, 2011.
63 Yuker HE, Block JR, Campbell WJ. A Scale to Measure Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center; 1960. Human Resources Study No. 5.
64 Antonak RF. Development and psychometric analysis of the Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. J Appl Rehabil Couns. 1982;13:22–29.
65 Siller J, Chipman A, Ferguson LT, Vann DH. Attitudes of non-disabled toward the physically disabled. In: Siller J, Thomas KR, eds. Essays and Research on Disability. Athens, Ga: Elliott & Fitzpatrick; 1967.
66 Tringo JL. The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. J Spec Educ. 1970;4:295–306.
67 Grand SA, Bernier JE, Strohmer DC. Attitudes toward disabled persons as a function of social context and specific disability. Rehabil Psychol. 1982;27:165–174.
68 Gething L, Wheeler B. The Interaction With Disabled Persons Scale: A new Australian instrument to measure attitudes towards people with disabilities. Aust J Psychol. 1992;44:75–82.
69 Findler L, Vilchinsky N, Werner S. The Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons With Disabilities (MAS): Construction and validation. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2007;50:166–176.
70 Thomas A, Doyle A, Vaughn D. Implementation of a computer based implicit association test as a measure of attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil. 2007;73(2):3–14.
71 Robey KL, Beckley L, Kirschner M. Implicit infantilizing attitudes about disability. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2006;18:441–453.
72 Brown RS, Graham CL, Richeson N, Wu J, McDermott S. Evaluation of medical student performance on objective structured clinical exams with standardized patients with and without disabilities. Acad Med. 2010;85:1766–1771. Accessed May 25, 2011.
73 Lawless K, Brown S, Carter M. Applying educational psychology and instructional technology to health care issues: Combating Lyme disease. Int J Instr Media. 1997;24:287–297.
74 Saketkoo L, Anderson D, Rice J, Rogan A, Lazarus CJ. Effects of a disability awareness and skills training workshop on senior medical students as assessed with self ratings and performance on a standardized patient case. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:345–354.
Back to Top | Article Outline

References Cited in Lists Only

75 Reis JP, Breslin M, Iezzoni LI, Kirschner KL. It Takes More Than Ramps to Solve the Crisis of Healthcare for Persons With Disabilities. Chicago, Ill: Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago; 2004.
    76 Marshall J, Haines A. Survey of the teaching of disability and rehabilitation to medical undergraduates in the UK. Med Educ. 1990;24:528–530.
      77 Hoeman SP, Duchene PM, Vierling L. Ethical and legal issues in rehabilitation nursing. In: Hoeman SP, ed. Rehabilitation Nursing: Prevention, Intervention and Outcomes. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby Elsevier; 2008:30–44.
        78 Jain S. Care of patients with disabilities: An important and often ignored aspect of family medicine teaching. Fam Med. 2006;38:13–15.
          79 Gans BM. Primary care for persons with disabilities: Establishing a vision for the future. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;76(3 suppl):1.
            80 Field MJ, Jette AM, eds; Institute of Medicine. The Future of Disability in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
              © 2011 Association of American Medical Colleges