ArticlePloS one2025
Disclosing disabilities: Barriers for medical school applicants.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the availability of accommodation request procedures for medical school admissions interviews and the accessibility of Technical Standards (TS) for candidates with disabilities (CWD) across Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited institutions in the United States and Canada. Utilizing a cross-sectional study methodology, surveys were distributed to Deans of Admissions and Disabilities Resource Professionals (DRP) at all LCME-accredited US and Canadian MD programs. Surveys gathered data about interview formats, interview accommodation procedures, and TS accessibility during the 2018-2019 academic year. We received responses from 71 institutions (41.3%), with 56.3% survey completion rate (n = 40). Among respondents, interview formats varied: 26.8% (n = 19) Multiple Mini Interview, 32.4% (n = 23) Traditional Interviews, and 16.9% (n = 12) hybrid. 38% (n = 27) of respondents informed CWD of accommodation procedures before interviews. Ten institutions (14.1%) indicated they had updated their procedure since the 2018-2019 academic year, which demonstrated better overall outcomes. Statistical analyses showed significant differences between institutions with/without updated procedures in the total number of applicants who requested accommodations, were granted interviews, provided interview day accommodation, offered admission, and matriculated (p = 0.005). In 66.7% (n = 18) of respondent institutions, admissions staff were aware of initial interview accommodation requests and 44.4% (n = 12) involved admissions staff when communicating accommodation plans. Among 27 schools, 55.6% (n = 15) required no documentation to support the CWD's need for accommodation; the rest required a form, clinician's letter, past proof, or other methods. 56.3% (n = 40) responded questions about TS and confirmed posting them on their website, with 77.5% (n = 31) on their admissions webpage. 77.5% (n = 31) also reported including language in the TS that direct CWD to the institution's disability office. This study reveals communication deficiencies about accommodations and TS requirements during the admissions process. Recommendations to enhance accessibility include informing candidates early about accommodation procedures and TS, and utilizing DRPs as CWD's primary accommodation contact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.