ArticleBMC medical education2026
Education and training for health professionals on disability inclusion: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersons with disabilities continue to experience profound and avoidable health inequities. Health professionals play a key role in addressing these inequities yet often lack the competencies and preparedness to provide equitable and rights-based care. To advance disability inclusion within health professions education, clarity is needed on which themes are currently represented in existing education and trainings. The objectives of this scoping review are 1) to describe how disability-related content has been incorporated into education and training for health professionals, and 2) to identify the key themes addressed in the existing literature.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Literature published between January 2011 and August 2024 was searched in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google, Google Scholar, and relevant organisational websites. Both academic and grey literature were included. Data were charted according to study characteristics, educational scope, understanding of disability, involvement of persons with disabilities, teaching format, and targeted health professionals. An inductive thematic analysis identified key themes addressed in education and training.
resultsA total of 172 publications met the inclusion criteria. The majority originated from the Region of the Americas and the European Region and were locally or nationally implemented initiatives. Nineteen distinct themes were identified. These themes ranged from themes such as conceptual understanding of disability and the perspectives of persons with disabilities to specific themes such as discrimination and violence or costs and time management. Most training interventions were small sessions or modules rather than longitudinal curricula, and few used validated tools to evaluate learning outcomes.
conclusionsDisability-related education and training for health professionals are expanding but remain fragmented and context-specific. There is an urgent need for globally aligned competency standards to guide curriculum development, for longitudinal integration of disability inclusion throughout training, and for the use of reliable evaluation frameworks. Strengthening competency- and human rights-based education is essential to prepare health professionals to deliver equitable, inclusive, and high-quality care for persons with disabilities.
trial registrationClinical trial number not applicable.
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.