In 2016, a survey found that 2.7% of US allopathic medical students disclosed a disability, which exceeded prior estimates. 1 Data from a follow-up survey, using the same methodology, were used to compare the prevalence of disability and accommodation practices between 2016 and 2019.

No abstract

Studying the performance of medical students with disabilities requires a better understanding of the prevalence and categories of disabilities represented. [1][2][3][4] It remains unclear how many medical students have disabilities; prior estimates are out-of-date and psychological, learning, and chronic health disabilities have not been evaluated. 5 This study assessed the prevalence of all disabilities and the accommodations in use at allopathic medical schools in the United States.

This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

Medical educators and leaders have called for greater diversity among the physician workforce, including those with disabilities. However, many students with disabilities are precluded from entering and completing medical training due to historically restrictive technical standards and poor internal practices to protect student privacy. This limits the possibilities for growing this part of the workforce and making progress toward the ultimate goal of having a physician workforce that better represents the patients it serves. To achieve diversity among the physician workforce, medical education must create environments that allow students with disabilities to apply to, flourish in, and feel well supported in medical school. Recent additions to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements have helped to catalyze work in the area of disability inclusion by incorporating disability-focused mandates into graduate medical education accreditation standards. However, similar mandates for undergraduate medical education have not yet materialized. In this article, the authors call for the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) to elevate disability as a valued part of medical school diversity in its accreditation standards and to include protections for disabled students. The authors propose that the LCME can take 5 actions to promote institutional accountability toward students with disabilities: (1) define disability as diversity, (2) mandate disability support, (3) protect from conflicts of interest, (4) protect privacy, and (5) verify schools’ technical standards comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. By adopting these recommendations, the LCME would send the powerful message that students with disabilities bring welcome expertise and value to the medical community.

Resident physicians are at higher risk for depression, anxiety, and burnout when compared with same-age peers, resulting in substantive personal and professional consequences. Training programs across the country have acknowledged the gravity of this situation and many have implemented programs and curricula that address wellness and resilience, yet the benefits of such initiatives are still largely unknown. While the development of wellness programming is well intentioned, it is often incongruent with the residency training environment. The mixed messaging that occurs when wellness programs are implemented in environments that do not support self-care may unintentionally cause resident distress. Indeed, outside of the time dedicated to wellness curricula, residents are often rewarded for self-sacrifice. In this commentary, we describe how the complexities of the medical system and culture contribute to mixed messaging and we explore the potential impact on residents. We offer recommendations to strengthen wellness programs through efforts to promote structural change in the training environment.

Introduction: Leaders in medical education have expressed a commitment to increase medical student diversity, including those with disabilities. Despite this commitment there exists a large gap in the number of medical students self-reporting disability in anonymous demographic surveys and those willing to disclose and request accommodations at a school level. Structural elements for disclosing and requesting disability accommodations have been identified as a main barrier for students with disabilities in medical education, yet school-level practices for student disclosure at US-MD programs have not been studied. Methods: In August 2020, a survey seeking to ascertain institutional disability disclosure structure was sent to student affairs deans at LCME fully accredited medical schools. Survey responses were coded according to their alignment with considerations from the AAMC report on disability and analyzed for any associations with the AAMC Organizational Characteristics Database and class size. Results: Disability disclosure structures were collected for 98 of 141 eligible schools (70% response rate). Structures for disability disclosure varied among the 98 respondent schools. Sixty-four (65%) programs maintained a disability disclosure structure in alignment with AAMC considerations; 34 (35%) did not. No statistically significant relationships were identified between disability disclosure structures and AAMC organizational characteristics or class size. Discussion: Thirty-five percent of LCME fully accredited MD program respondents continue to employ structures of disability disclosure that do not align with the considerations offered in the AAMC report. This structural non-alignment has been identified as a major barrier for medical students to accessing accommodations and may disincentivize disability disclosure. Meeting the stated calls for diversity will require schools to consider structural barriers that marginalize students with disabilities and make appropriate adjustments to their services to improve access.

No abstract