Disability Training for Health Workers: A Global Narrative Systematic Review

Sara Rotenberg, Rodríguez Danae Gatta, Azizia Wahedi, Rachelle Loo, Emily McFadden, Sara Ryan
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.03.21261522

ABSTRACT

Background Health worker training on disability is a recognized component of achieving high standards of health for people with disabilities, given that health worker’s lack of knowledge, stigma, and negative attitudes towards people with disabilities act as barriers to high quality health care.

Objective To understand the published literature on training health workers about disability.

Methods We searched five databases for relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 2012 and January 2021. Studies that focused on training health care workers to improve knowledge, confidence, self-efficacy, and competence to support people with physical, sensory, or intellectual impairments were included. Data about the details of the intervention (setting, participants, format, impact assessments, etc.) and its effects were extracted.

Results There is an array of highly local tools to train health workers across stages of their training and careers (pre-service, in-service, and continuing professional development). Studies involving people with disabilities in the training, community placements, simulations, or interactive sessions were found to be most effective in improving knowledge, confidence, competency, and self-efficacy.

Conclusions As part of initiatives to build inclusive health systems and improve health outcomes for people with disabilities, health workers around the world need to receive appropriate and evidence-based training that combine multiple methods and involve people with disabilities.

BACKGROUND

Human resources for health are at the heart of high-quality health systems. It is critical to improve health worker training to improve health care for populations that are systematically marginalized by health systems, such as people with disabilities. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that people with disabilities make up 15% of the world’s population.1 People with disabilities often face significant barriers to health care, including lack of accessible transport and facilities, limited financial protection, poor health worker attitudes that result in worse outcomes or limited health worker training on disability.2 Even in countries where there is guaranteed universal access and financial protection, health workers’ unfamiliarity with disability, or negative attitudes towards people with disabilities, can not only foster an unwelcoming environment, but also contribute to high rates of patient safety issues and poor quality care.1

Health worker training on disability is a recognized component of achieving high standards of health for people with disabilities. While the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) Article 253 has specific requirements on access to health care and SDG monitoring on health worker disability training, the recent World Health Assembly resolution most eminently highlights the role of health worker training in removing barriers to health care for people with disabilities.4 In addition, recent studies have highlighted the need to improve health care workers’ attitudes, knowledge, and competency to provide care for people with disabilities. For example, a US study illustrated that just 40.7% of physicians were confident about providing care to patients with disabilities and most (82.4%) perceived that people with significant disabilities have worse quality of life. Similarly, a study found that 87% of nursing students implicitly associated negative traits with physical disability, which may influence clinician behaviour. These studies illustrate the need to improve health workers’ confidence, competency, attitudes, and comfort in treating patients with disabilities. Given these international agreements and recent studies, it is important that countries around the world begin to integrate disability training systematically and use examples of successful interventions as models.

This review directly builds on a previous review by Shakespeare and Kleine that explored health worker training on disability between 2000 and 2011.5 The study found that, while there are numerous interventions to teach medical professionals about disability, there are few common philosophical underpinnings, insufficient hands-on experience, and more opportunities to incorporate disability across the curriculum.5 Since this review, additional systematic reviews have examined health worker training on people with disabilities for certain populations of health workers6, certain impairments,7 or geographic areas.

Given renewed international commitments to health worker training on disability and country-level plans in Australia8 and the UK9 to train health workers on specific types of disability, it is important to update Shakespeare and Kleine’s review5 and outline the types of interventions to improve health worker’s knowledge, confidence, self-efficacy, and competence in treating patients with disabilities. Understanding the ways in which health workers receive training on disability, will facilitate adjusting system-level policies and individual-level practices to improve care for people with disabilities. Ultimately, this review will help to understand the types of training that support positive and sustained improvements in service delivery for health workers serving people with disabilities.

METHODS

Search Strategy

Electronic searches were conducted for the EMBASE, Global Health, Medline, CINAHL, ASSIA and Web of Science databases between 18-19 January 2021. Search terms were developed in three domains: disability, health education, and health workers. Disability terms were general, focusing on various types of impairments; health education terms targeted aspects of health training (i.e., ‘core competency’, ‘patient encounter’, ‘standardized patient’, etc.); and health worker terms were developed using key terms from WHO’s International Classifications of Health Workers.10 Terms were developed using MeSH, keywords, or equivalent as well as from other reviews on similar topics and searches were limited to papers in English, French, or Spanish. These parameters and strategy were agreed upon by the authors and a research librarian before the search was conducted to ensure there were adequate words to capture articles across the three domains examined. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed for conducting and reporting the review (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021231120). All studies identified by the review were exported into an EndNote database (version X20, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and then exported into Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Qatar) for screening. 11

Selection Criteria

Our search strategy sought to identify peer-reviewed articles from around the world published between January 2012 and 2021. Given a previous systematic review covered this topic until 20115, the search included articles published from 2012-January 2021 and included all health worker types, health education levels, and disability globally. The inclusion criteria required that studies were: qualitative and/or quantitative in methods; included a complete description of the intervention; explicit evaluation of the training’s impact (i.e., pre- and/or post-training evaluations, follow-up surveys, etc.); and had a particular focus on improving disability competency, knowledge, confidence, self-efficacy, curricula, or teaching methods. Studies examining health worker attitudes towards people with disabilities were excluded on the basis that a positive attitude does not necessarily guarantee improved competency or care outcomes. Studies that measured attitudes alongside other criteria were included. Finally, the abundance of articles on training health workers about mental health, the authors decided that this topic merited further, independent exploration, and, therefore, we excluded papers that trained health workers only about mental health. Only papers that looked at physical, sensory, intellectual or developmental impairments were included.

Data Extraction

All data were extracted into a Google Sheet developed for this review. 78 full-text articles underwent data extraction, following a title, abstract, and full-text review by two reviewers (SRo and DR). An additional three reviewers (SRo, AW, RL) extracted data related to the general study information, setting, country, health worker cadre, number of participants, type of disability, features of the intervention, impact measurement, and outcomes. The extraction was double-checked by a second reviewer and collectively checked again by the extractors (SRo, AW, RL). Any conflicts in inclusion or extraction were resolved through discussion with a third and/or fourth member of the review team.

Given the wide array of study instruments and outcomes used to assess training impact, a meta-analysis could not be conducted, and a narrative synthesis was conducted instead. Quality and bias assessments were conducted by at least two reviewers in accordance with the SIGN50 (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Checklists) and modified slightly from previous methods.13

Studies were rated as low bias, if all or almost all of the criteria were fulfilled, and those that were not fulfilled were thought unlikely to alter the conclusions of the study; medium, if some of the criteria were fulfilled, and those not fulfilled were thought unlikely to alter the conclusions of the study; or high, if few or no criteria were fulfilled, and the conclusions of the study were thought likely or very likely to alter with their inclusion.

RESULTS

The preliminary search identified 5,665 articles for title and abstract screening, after 1,527 duplicates were removed. Following screening, 247 articles were included for full-text review. Twelve studies were excluded because full-texts could not be retrieved and a further 154 studies did not meet the inclusion criteria as shown in Fig.1., and 3 articles included in the review were excluded during extraction because of an unclear intervention (n=1) and wrong population group (n=2).14

Fig 1.
Fig 1. Flow chart of selected studies to review health worker training on disability 12

Included studies (n=78) represented a range of geographies, health workers, and intervention types. Among these, there were studies from 19 countries, including seven low- and middle-income countries.15 Most studies took place in the United States (n=35), followed by the United Kingdom (n=13). Among the studies included, 30 were rated as low, 43 as medium, and five as high risk of bias [Supplementary Materials]. Studies varied in whether they were mandatory or optional; free or paid; and for certification or elective; however, many studies did not include this information. Various cadres of health workers were included in the study; doctors, medical students or residents (n=37), and nurses or nursing students (n=17) were the main recipients of training. These health workers were generally trained in the pre-qualification stage (n=52), though there were several in-service (n=7) and continuing professional development (CPD) programs (n=19). The review included studies across disability groups; the most common focus was training about people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (n=41), followed by general programs about people with disabilities (n=16). Most studies measured improvements in knowledge (n=57) and competence (n=42) outcomes, yet most studies used a self-designed evaluation instrument (n=54). There was a wide variety of techniques to train health workers about disability, including lectures or other didactic methods (n=65), and case studies (n=28); the majority of studies (n=58) used multiple teaching modalities [Appendix A].

Lecture/Didactic Methods

Most (n=65) studies included lectures or didactic methods, such as videos, multi-media formats, or online coursework. Many studies used these opportunities to introduce health professionals to the topic of disability from a rights-based perspective to enhance attitudes, awareness, and knowledge about disability. Some studies also taught particular skills that could be applied in-practice, such as an elective sign language class for medical and pharmacology terms16 to improve skills for engaging with d/Deaf or hard of hearing individuals. Lectures were often combined with some other intervention (case study or simulation) to apply knowledge learned from the lecture. Participants in combined programs identified the content to be quite engaging and contributed to greater improvements in key outcomes. However, for those who only completed lecture or didactic-based methods, there were still improvements in the general outcomes, but it was often less significant than studies that combined multiple methods 14,17,18.Finally, some programs utilized novel, innovative technology and multimedia tools to teach about disability in a more engaging method than traditional lectures or didactic methods. For example, one study designed multi-media tools (MMLTs) to teach medical students about common visual impairments and compared the knowledge scores with those who had read a textbook. The findings highlight the importance of engaging material, as while there was no significant difference in knowledge (except for cataract recognition), the MMLT took less time and 87% of individuals found it more enjoyable than traditional teaching methods.19

People with Disabilities as Teachers

Recognizing the important role of self-advocates and patients as educators5, several studies (n=19) invited people with disabilities to share their experiences in the health system, portray standardized patients, or give a lecture. Some universities hired people with disabilities to participate in simulated patient programs, while others asked patients to participate voluntarily. Many others found creative ways of engaging with people with disabilities. Cardiff University, for example, hired a self-advocacy theatre group to run a simulation and icebreaker activity.20 These activities added a non-clinical dimension to medical training about disability, as it allowed participants to explore disability outside the health worker-patient relationship and engage in dialogue. Studies that measured participants comfort and attitudes before and after a person with a disability as a teacher demonstrated that participants felt the non-clinical interaction enhanced their comfort and attitudes towards people with disabilities. 21, 22

View this table:
Table 1: Characteristics of Included Studies

Case Studies

Case studies are a common tool in medical education to prepare health workers holistically for their education, provided they have clear structure, details, and observations.23 Accordingly, many studies used case studies (n=28) as a way of learning how to improve care for people with disabilities. These tools were especially common in continuing professional development, as some programs ask patients to bring case examples to review anonymously to improve care 24, 25 or were to spur reflection on their own work. Several case studies were conducted through online learning or innovative interactive methods. For example, the City University of London created CitySCaPE, which is a multi-media simulation that simulated different patient cases of people with intellectual disabilities with nursing students. 26 These types of case studies that blended the traditional case study and simulation aspects created greater engagement in settings where in-person or clinical encounters were not possible.

Placements, experiential, and community-based learning

Placements, experiential, and community-based learning (n=25) methods were sustained opportunities to engage with people with disabilities in clinical and alternative settings that were common in in-service and pre-qualification training. For example, some studies examined the impact of clerkship placements in specialized clinics for people with disabilities,27 while others looked at nurses and occupational therapists’ improvements after participating in a week-long summer camp for children with disabilities.28 In the clinical setting, students found that they improved skills because they were able to engage with people with disabilities for extended periods, rather than a singular interaction. Furthermore, the out-of-clinic engagement, such as at camps, schools, or residential settings helped illustrate the non-medical and everyday lives of people with disabilities.

Simulations

Simulations were found to be helpful tools to support skill development and learning outside of health worker-patient interactions. Many speech-language pathology, nursing, and medical student programs used simulations (n=24) as tools to develop confidence and communication skills when treating patients with communication disorders.29,30, 31 In addition, several medical schools integrated disability training into existing clinical simulation skills labs to improve care for people with disabilities. For example, at the University of Gothenburg medical students were videotaped during a simulated patient exercise to reflect on improving communications skills, particularly for the simulated patient with an acquired communication disorder.31 Overall, the simulations were useful tools for improving knowledge, comfort, and competency in a low-pressure environment that is applicable to serving people with disabilities.

Clinical Encounters

Several programs (n=26) included singular clinical encounters with patients with disabilities as part of their disability training. These were often day-long programs to familiarize students with providing care and were predominantly focused on improving knowledge and competency.32 Most students who participated in these programs were advanced (i.e., penultimate or final year students) who had previously had some education on providing care to people with disabilities. These opportunities focused on practicing clinical skills to treat patients with disabilities, and, despite the short exposure, did significantly affect participant’s key outcome scores. For instance, clinical encounters used in CPD, such as in Rwanda, where instructors in a physiotherapist training program went to participants’ clinics to provide immediate feedback on their practice.33

Multi-pronged approach

Approximately 75% of papers utilized a combination of methods to have impact on training participants. These multi-pronged approaches helped reach various learning styles and cement learning. Two papers included in this review utilized all of the interventions measured in this paper. For example, two State University of New York medical colleges demonstrated the importance of integrating disability across health worker curricula, as all participants significantly improved their knowledge, attitudes, and core competencies in treating patients with disabilities.34 Similarly, the University of South Florida had a 12-week clinical clerkship that involved classroom simulations, lectures, case studies, people with disabilities as teachers, and a twice-weekly placement in a community clinic that served people with disabilities. The immersion helped to significantly improve knowledge, attitudes, and comfort.35

DISCUSSION

Numerous studies and examples serve as successful models to train health workers about disability and improve knowledge, competence, skills, self-efficacy, and confidence to treat patients with disabilities. All teaching methods had some positive impact on the outcomes measured in this study, regardless of health worker type, location, or training stage, though the most commonly used were lecture/didactic methods and case studies. Part of the success of these programs was the multi-pronged nature of the approach, as 75% of studies used multiple teaching methods. The two examples that utilized all teaching interventions demonstrate the importance of a multi-pronged approach that emphasizes mainstreaming disability in health curricula, either through sustained engagement in a curricula 34 or an intensive placement.35

However, limited information about commonalities in curricula could be extracted from the data, given the diversity of interventions methods and topics.

It is important to note that these findings are not substantially different from the 2011 review.5 Similar methods are still used to teach health workers on disability and each example is highly localized, within either a certain school or region, other than two studies that examined national-level training programs.33, 36 The limited evidence of systemic integration of disability training within health worker practices is concerning in this context as the current status of training appears to depend on where you received your training, where you live, or where you work. Enacting systemic-level change to ensure all health workers have the same level of high-quality training on disability will contribute to providing consistent, high-quality care and outcomes for people with disabilities.

Similarly, there was limited standardization in tools used to measure the impact of disability training on health workers. Of the 78 studies, nearly 70% designed their own instruments, and only two studies included the same standardized measure of outcomes.37,38 Few studies measured the longevity of the intervention’s impact. Sustained approaches that mainstream disability should help to ensure learning is not performative for post-intervention evaluation, but actually effect change. This finding was previously noted 5 and there has been little improvement. Developing a common, standardized cross-disability tool or protocol for evaluating immediate and long-term intervention impact may help support monitoring and evaluation efforts to further refine and improve training.

While the review uncovered many examples of disability training, one of the main limitations of the study is that it only highlights published examples of studies, which can leave out unpublished examples. Furthermore, without greater follow-up evaluation or standardization in evaluation, it is difficult to assess the longevity and quality of impact to understand impact of training definitively. On the other hand, this study reveals some adaptable examples of how to integrate disability training into all stages of health worker training and development, which can serve as models for inclusion efforts around the world.

CONCLUSION

Significant health disparities and poor-quality health care still exist for people with disabilities around the world. Without normalizing disability training as part of high-quality health worker training, there will continue to be limited progress on improving outcomes for people with disabilities. Catalyzing the post-pandemic health systems strengthening efforts to include these evidence-based and effective health worker training on disability can contribute to improved care and outcomes for people with disabilities.

Data Availability

N/A

Appendix A: Details of interventions in included studies

View this table:

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    World Bank and World Health Organization. World Report on Disability. 2011:350. https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf?ua=1
  2. 2.↵
    Kuper H, Heydt P. The Missing Billion: Access to Health Services for 1 Billion People with Disabilities. 2019:28. https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/TheMissingBillion
  3. 3.↵
    Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), (2006). Accessed 2020/07/11/20:53:45. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
  4. 4.↵
    A new landmark resolution on disability adopted at the 74th World Health Assembly. World Health Organization; 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/27-05-2021-a-new-landmark-resolution-on-disability-adopted-at-the-74th-world-health-assembly
  5. 5.↵
    Shakespeare T, Kleine I. Educating Health Professionals about Disability: A Review of Interventions. Health and Social Care Education. 2013;2(2):20-37. doi:10.11120/hsce.2013.00026
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    Ioerger M, Flanders RM, French-Lawyer JR, Turk MA. Interventions to Teach Medical Students About Disability: A Systematic Search and Review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. Jul 2019;98(7):577-599. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000001154
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    Ceglio K, Rispoli MJ, Flake EM. Training Medical Professionals to Work with Patients with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review. Developmental Neurorehabilitation. 2020 Oct 2;23(7):463–73.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
  9. 9.↵
    Health Education E. The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training in Learning Disability and Autism. Health Education England. 2020/08/07/T15:20:04+01:00 2020;
  10. 10.↵
    World Health O. Classifying health workers: Mapping occupations to the international standard classification. 2010. 2010/04/29/. Accessed 2021/06/16/. https://www.who.int/hrh/statistics/Health_workers_classification.pdf
  11. 11.↵
    Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2016 2016;5(1) doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021/03/29/ 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Bright T, Wallace S, Kuper H. A Systematic Review of Access to Rehabilitation for People with Disabilities in Low-and Middle-Income Countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10) doi:10.3390/ijerph15102165
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Gilmore M, Sturgeon A, Thomson C, et al. Changing medical students’ attitudes to and knowledge of deafness: a mixed methods study. Bmc Medical Education. Jun 2019;19227. doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1666-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Bank TW. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. World Bank Group. Accessed 16 June, 2021.
  16. 16.↵
    Bailey N, Kaarto P, Burkey J, Bright D, Sohn M. Evaluation of an American Sign Language co-curricular training for pharmacy students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. Jan 2021;13(1):68–72. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2020.08.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Dagnan D, Masson J, Thwaites R, James A, Hatton C. Training therapists to work with people with intellectual disability in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services. Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID. 2018;31(5):760-767. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jar.12427
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Salama FS, Al-Balkhi BK. Effectiveness of educational intervention of oral health for special needs on knowledge of dental students in Saudi Arabia. Disability and Health Journal. Jan 2020;13(1) 100789. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.03.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Steedman M, Abouammoh M, Sharma S. Multimedia learning tools for teaching undergraduate ophthalmology: Results of a randomized clinical study. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2012;47(1):66-71. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2011.12.006
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Abdi R, Metcalf E. Exploring attitudes of medical students towards intellectual disabilities. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities. Aug 2020;14(5):125–136. doi:10.1108/amhid-01-2020-0002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    Lynch J, Last J, Dodd P, Stancila D, Linehan C. ‘Understanding Disability’: Evaluating a contact-based approach to enhancing attitudes and disability literacy of medical students. Disability and Health Journal. Jan 2019;12(1):65–71. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2018.07.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    Iannuzzi D, Rissmiller P, Duty SM, Feeney S, Sullivan M, Curtin C. Addressing a Gap in Healthcare Access for Transition-Age Youth with Autism: A Pilot Educational Intervention for Family Nurse Practitioner Students. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Apr 2019;49(4):1493–1504. doi:10.1007/s10803-018-3846-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    Cheek C, Hays R, Smith J, Allen P. Improving case study research in medical education: a systematised review. Medical Education. 2018/05// 2018;52(5):480–487. doi:10.1111/medu.13469
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Mazurek MO, Stobbe G, Loftin R, et al. ECHO Autism Transition: Enhancing healthcare for adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Autism. Apr 2020;24(3):633-644. 1362361319879616. doi:10.1177/1362361319879616
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    Sohl K, Mazurek MO, Brown R. ECHO Autism: Using Technology and Mentorship to Bridge Gaps, Increase Access to Care, and Bring Best Practice Autism Care to Primary Care. Clinical Pediatrics. 2017;56(6):509-511. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0009922817691825
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Chiang HC, Lin FY, Hwu YJ. Disability Assessment: The Efficacy of Multimedia Interactive Nurse Education. Journal of Nursing Research. Jun 2013;21(2):83–93. doi:10.1097/jnr.0b013e3182921f5a
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    Watmough S, Leftwick P, Alexander-White S. An evaluation of medical students’ views on the introduction of a community placement and its impact on their understanding of patients with disabilities. Education for primary care : an official publication of the Association of Course Organisers, National Association of GP Tutors, World Organisation of Family Doctors. 2014;25(1):36–42.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Hensel D, Malinowski C, Watts PA. Implementing a Pediatric Camp Clinical for Pre-Licensure Education. Nursing education perspectives. 2015;36(1):60-61. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.5480/12-871.1
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    VandeWaa E, Bealle Rudd A, Estis JM, Gordon-Hickey S. Safe Medication Administration in Patients with Communication Disorders: A Simulation-Enhanced Interprofessional Education Approach. Journal of allied health. 2019;48(4):257–262.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Sheepway L, Lincoln M, McAllister S. Impact of placement type on the development of clinical competency in speech-language pathology students. International journal of language & communication disorders / Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. 2014;49(2):189-203. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12059
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Saldert C, Forsgren E, Hartelius L. Teaching medical students about communication in speech-language disorders: Effects of a lecture and a workshop. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2016;18(6):571–579. doi:10.3109/17549507.2016.1143975
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    Keisling BL, Bishop EA, Kube DA, Roth JM, Palmer FB. Long-term pediatrician outcomes of a parent led curriculum in developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2017;60:16-23. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.11.004
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Clark K, Smith CNW, Kohls L, et al. A global health training model for teaching pediatric clinical decision making skills to Rwandan physical therapists: A case report. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. Sep 2019;35(9):891–903. doi:10.1080/09593985.2018.1458263
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Symons AB, Morley CP, McGuigan D, Akl EA. A curriculum on care for people with disabilities: Effects on medical student self-reported attitudes and comfort level. Disability and Health Journal. Jan 2014;7(1):88–95. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.08.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Garavatti E, Tucker J, Pabian PS. Utilization of an Interprofessional Integrated Clinical Education Experience to Improve Medical and Physical Therapy Student Comfort in Treating Patients with Disabilities. Education for Health. Sep-Dec 2018;31(3):155–162. doi:10.4103/efh.EfH_177_17
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    Pasco G, Clark B, Dragan I, et al. A training and development project to improve services and opportunities for social inclusion for children and young people with autism in Romania. Autism. Oct 2014;18(7):827–831. doi:10.1177/1362361314524642
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Mac Giolla Phadraig C, Guerin S, Nunn J. Should we educate care staff to improve the oral health and oral hygiene of people with intellectual disability in residential care? Real world lessons from a randomized controlled trial. Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry. 2015;35(3):92-98. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/scd.12102
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Mac Giolla Phadraig C, Guerin S, Nunn J. Train the trainer? A randomized controlled trial of a multi-tiered oral health education programme in community-based residential services for adults with intellectual disability. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology. 2013;41(2):182-92. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12006
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.
    Thew D, Smith SR, Chang C, Starr M. The Deaf Strong Hospital Program: A Model of Diversity and Inclusion Training for First-Year Medical Students. Academic Medicine. Nov 2012;87(11):1496–1500. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31826d322d
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.
    Smith P, Ooms A, Marks-Maran D. Active involvement of learning disabilities service users in the development and delivery of a teaching session to pre-registration nurses: Students’ perspectives. Nurse education in practice. 2016;16(1):111-118. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2015.09.010
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    Lapinski J, Colonna C, Sexton P, Richard M. AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AND DEAF CULTURE COMPETENCY OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL STUDENTS. American Annals of the Deaf. Spr 2015;160(1):36–47. doi:10.1353/aad.2015.0014
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.
    Holzinger A, Lettner S, Franz A. Attitudes of dental students towards patients with special healthcare needs: Can they be improved? European Journal of Dental Education. May 2020;24(2):243–251. doi:10.1111/eje.12490
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.
    Saunder L, Knight RA. CitySCaPE: Moving beyond indifference in education for preregistration nurses about learning disability. Nurse education in practice. 2017;26:82-88. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.07.008
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.
    Santoro JD, Whitgob EE, Huffman LC. Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of Disability Education Module During Clinical Clerkship. Clinical Pediatrics. Nov 2019;58(13):1387–1393. doi:10.1177/0009922819850475
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.
    Perusini DJ, Llacuachaqui M, Sigal MJ, Dempster LJ. Dental Students’ Clinical Expectations and Experiences Treating Persons with Disabilities. Journal of dental education. 2016;80(3):301–310.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.
    Castro SS, Rowe M, Andrade LF, Cyrino EG. Developing competencies among health professions students related to the care of people with disabilities: a pilot study. Interface-Comunicacao Saude Educacao. Apr-Jun 2018;22(65):551–563. doi:10.1590/1807-57622016.0684
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.
    Burrola-Mendez Y, Goldberg M, Gartz R, Pearlman J. Development of a Hybrid Course on Wheelchair Service Provision for clinicians in international contexts. PLoS ONE. 2019;13(6):e0199251. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199251
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.
    Mohebbi SZ, Chinipardaz Z, Batebi A. Effectiveness of training senior dental students on oral health care for disabled patients. European Journal of Dental Education. Nov 2014;18(4):214–221. doi:10.1111/eje.12090
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.
    Ahmad MS, Mokhtar IW, Khan NLA. Extramural oral health educational program involving individuals with disabilities: Impact on dental students’ professionalism. Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry. May-Jun 2020;10(3):323–328. doi:10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_74_20
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.
    Crane JM, Strickler JG, Lash AT, et al. Getting comfortable with disability: The short-and long-term effects of a clinical encounter. Disability and Health Journal. 2020:100993. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100993
  51. 51.
    Tai S, Woodward-Kron R, Barr C. Audiology Students’ Perspectives of Enacting and Learning Clinical Communication: A Qualitative Interview and Video Reflexivity Study. American Journal of Audiology. Jun 2018;27(2):219–230. doi:10.1044/2018_aja-17-0097
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.
    Ozkan F, Uslu N, Zincir H. Effect of practices for mentally disabled children on attitudes of nursing students. Cukurova Medical Journal. 2020;45(3):851–859. doi:10.17826/cumj.715000
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.
    Sinai A, Strydom A, Hassiotis A. Evaluation of medical students’ attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities: a naturalistic study in one medical school. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities. 2013 2020-09-14 2013;7(1):18-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20441281311294666
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.
    Shields LBE, Peppas DS, Rosenberg E. Renal Calculus in Floating-Harbor Syndrome: A Case Report. Journal of Pediatric Health Care. Jan 2019;33(1):97–101. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2018.07.009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.
    Watkins LV, Colgate R. Improving healthcare for people with intellectual disabilities: the development of an evidence-based teaching programme. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities. 2016;10(6):333–341. doi:10.1108/amhid-07-2016-0009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. 56.
    Forsgren E, Hartelius L, Saldert C. Improving medical students’ knowledge and skill in communicating with people with acquired communication disorders. International journal of speech-language pathology. 2017;19(6):541-550. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2016.1216602
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.
    McIntosh CE, Thomas CM, Wilczynski S, McIntosh DE. Increasing Nursing Students’ Knowledge of Autism Spectrum Disorder by Using a Standardized Patient. Nursing education perspectives. 2018;39(1):32-34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000179
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.
    Woodard LJ, Havercamp SM, Zwygart KK, Perkins EA. An Innovative Clerkship Module Focused on Patients With Disabilities. Academic Medicine. Apr 2012;87(4):537–542. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318248ed0a
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.
    Jones J, McQueen M, Lowe S, Minnes P, Rischke A. Interprofessional Education in Canada: Addressing Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes Concerning Intellectual Disability for Future Healthcare Professionals. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. Sep 2015;12(3):172–180. doi:10.1111/jppi.12112
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.
    Beverly BL, Wooster D. An Interprofessional Education Initiative for Allied Health Students Preparing to Serve Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of allied health. 2018;47(2):90–95.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.
    Coret A, Boyd K, Hobbs K, Zazulak J, McConnell M. Patient Narratives as a Teaching Tool: A Pilot Study of First-Year Medical Students and Patient Educators Affected by Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2018;30(3):317–327. doi:10.1080/10401334.2017.1398653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.
    Jain S, Foster E, Biery N, Boyle V. Patients With Disabilities as Teachers. Family Medicine. Jan 2013;45(1):37–39.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. 63.
    Karl R, McGuigan D, Withiam-Leitch ML, Akl EA, Symons AB. Reflective Impressions of a Precepted Clinical Experience Caring for People With Disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Aug 2013;51(4):237–245. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-51.4.237
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.
    Thomas B, Courtenay K, Hassiotis A, Strydom A, Rantell K. Standardised patients with intellectual disabilities in training tomorrow’s doctors. BJPsych Bulletin. 2014;38(3):132-136. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.113.043547
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.
    Baylor C, Burns M, McDonough K, Mach H, Yorkston K. Teaching Medical Students Skills for Effective Communication With Patients Who Have Communication Disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Feb 2019;28(1):155–164. doi:10.1044/2018_ajslp-18-0130
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.
    Saunder L, Berridge EJ. Immersive simulated reality scenarios for enhancing students’ experience of people with learning disabilities across all fields of nurse education. Nurse Education in Practice. Nov 2015;15(6):397–402. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2015.04.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. 67.
    Dyer K, Aubeeluck A, Yates NL, Das Nair R. A Multiple Timepoint Pre-post Evaluation of a ‘Sexual Respect’ DVD to Improve Competence in Discussing Sex with Patients with Disability. Sexuality and Disability. Sep 2015;33(3):385–397. doi:10.1007/s11195-014-9375-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.
    Provident IM, Colmer MA. Muscular dystrophy summer camp: A case study of a non-traditional level I fieldwork using a collaborative supervision model. Work. 2013;44(3):337–404. doi:10.3233/wor-121510
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.
    Adib-Hajbaghery M, Rezaei-Shahsavarloo Z. Nursing students’ knowledge of and performance in communicating with patients with hearing impairment. Japan journal of nursing science : JJNS. 2015;12(2):135-44. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12057
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.
    Tate JA, Newtz C, Ali A, Happ MB. Advancing Patient-Centered Communication Content for Prelicensure Nursing Students Using StudentSPEACS. Nurse Educator. Jul-Aug 2020;45(4):E36–E40. doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000000785
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.
    Theoret C, Patel R, Thangamathesvaran L, Shah R, Chen S, Traba C. Creating Disability-Competent Medical Students Via Community Outreach. Journal of the National Medical Association. 2020; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2020.07.010
  72. 72.
    Watters AL, Stabulas-Savage J, Toppin JD, Janal MN, Robbins MR. Incorporating Experiential Learning Techniques to Improve Self-Efficacy in Clinical Special Care Dentistry Education. Journal of Dental Education. Sep 2015;79(9):1016–1023.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.
    Vento-Wilson MT, McGuire A, Ostergren JA. Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Acute Care Patients With Severe Communication Impairments. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing. Mar-Apr 2015;34(2):112–119. doi:10.1097/dcc.0000000000000094
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. 74.
    Kirshblum S, Murray R, Potpally N, Foye PM, Dyson-Hudson T, DallaPiazza M. An introductory educational session improves medical student knowledge and comfort levels in caring for patients with physical disabilities. Disability and Health Journal. Jan 2020;13(1)100825. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100825
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.
    Read S, Rushton A. Cultivating understanding of health issues for adults with intellectual disability. Nurse Education Today. Sep 2013;33(9):1020–1025. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.03.013
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.
    Major NE, Peacock G, Ruben W, Thomas J, Weitzman CC. Autism Training in Pediatric Residency: Evaluation of a Case-Based Curriculum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. May 2013;43(5):1171–1177. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1662-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.
    Tuffrey-Wijne I, Rose T, Grant R, Wijne A. Communicating about death and dying: Developing training for staff working in services for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. Nov 2017;30(6):1099–1110. doi:10.1111/jar.12382
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. 78.
    Toro ML, Bird E, Oyster M, et al. Development of a wheelchair maintenance training programme and questionnaire for clinicians and wheelchair users. Disability and rehabilitation Assistive technology. 2017;12(8):843-851. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2016.1277792
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.
    Bogetz JF, Gabhart JM, Rassbach CE, et al. Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Educational Intervention to Train Pediatric Residents on Caring for Children With Special Health Care Needs. Clinical Pediatrics. Jun 2015;54(7):659–666. doi:10.1177/0009922814564050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.
    Casson I, Abells D, Boyd K, et al. Teaching family medicine residents about care of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Canadian Family Physician. Apr 2019;65:S35–S40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.
    McGonigle JJ, Migyanka JM, Glor-Scheib SJ, et al. Development and evaluation of educational materials for pre-hospital and emergency department personnel on the care of patients with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2014;44(5):1252-1259. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1962-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.
    Doyle SD, Bennett S. Feasibility and effect of a professional education workshop for occupational therapists’ management of upper-limb poststroke sensory impairment. The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association. 2014;68(3):e74-e83. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.009019
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.
    Dunleavy K, Chevan J, Sander AP, Gasherebuka JD, Mann M. Application of a contextual instructional framework in a continuing professional development training program for physiotherapists in Rwanda. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2018;40(13):1600–1608. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1300692
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.
    Mazurek MO, Parker RA, Chan J, Kuhlthau K, Sohl K, Collaborative EA. Effectiveness of the Extension for Community Health Outcomes Model as Applied to Primary Care for Autism A Partial Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama Pediatrics. May 2020;174(5)e196306. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6306
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.
    Locke HN, Doctors S, Randriamampianina I, Chamberlain MA, O’Connor RJ. EVALUATING A GLOBAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIP REHABILITATION TRAINING PROGRAMME IN MADAGASCAR. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. Dec 2019;51(11):847–853. doi:10.2340/16501977-2621
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.
    Edinger ZS, Powers KA, Jordan KS, Callaway DW. Evaluation of an online educational intervention to increase knowledge and self-efficacy in disaster responders and critical care transporters caring for individuals with developmental disabilities. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13(4):677–681.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.
    Auberry K, Wills K, Shaver C. Improving medication practices for persons with intellectual and developmental disability: Educating direct support staff using simulation, debriefing, and reflection. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities. 2019;23(4):498-511. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744629517731231
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.
    Olowoyeye AO, Musa KO, Aribaba OT. Outcome of training of maternal and child health workers in Ifo Local Government Area, Ogun State, Nigeria, on common childhood blinding diseases: a pre-test, post-test, one-group quasi-experimental study. Bmc Health Services Research. Jun 2019;19430. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4272-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.
    Cameron A, McPhail SM, Hudson K, Fleming J, Lethlean J, Finch E. A pre-post intervention study investigating the confidence and knowledge of health professionals communicating with people with aphasia in a metropolitan hospital. Aphasiology. 2017;31(3):359-374. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2016.1225277
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.
    Catteau C, Faulks D, Mishellany-Dutour A, et al. Using e-learning to train dentists in the development of standardised oral health promotion interventions for persons with disability. European Journal of Dental Education. Aug 2013;17(3):143–153. doi:10.1111/eje.12024
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.
    Quinn BL, Smolinski M. Improving School Nurse Pain Assessment Practices for Students With Intellectual Disability. Journal of School Nursing. Dec 2018;34(6):480–488. doi:10.1177/1059840517722591
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. 92.
    Phlypo I, De Tobel J, Marks L, De Visschere L, Koole S. Integrating community service learning in undergraduate dental education: A controlled trial in a residential facility for people with intellectual disabilities. Special Care in Dentistry. Jul-Aug 2018;38(4):201–207. doi:10.1111/scd.12298
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. 93.
    Sanchez D, Adamovich S, Ingram M, et al. The potential in preparing community health workers to address hearing loss. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2017;28(6):562-574. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16045
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.
    Figueiras ACM, Puccini RF, Silva EMK. Continuing education on child development for primary healthcare professionals: a prospective before-and-after study. Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 2014;132(4):211–218. doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2014.1324665
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted August 04, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Disability Training for Health Workers: A Global Narrative Systematic Review
Sara Rotenberg, Rodríguez Danae Gatta, Azizia Wahedi, Rachelle Loo, Emily McFadden, Sara Ryan
medRxiv 2021.08.03.21261522; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.03.21261522
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area