ArticleThe clinical teacher2026
Is It My Responsibility? Professional Organizations' Perspectives on Disability Inclusion in Health Professions Education and Practice.
Article in The clinical teacher, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDisabled healthcare professionals offer valuable expertise yet face systemic barriers in education and practice. This study explores perspectives of professional organizations on the inclusion of students (SRA) and practitioners (PRA) requiring accommodations in health and human service (HHS) professions.
methodUsing an exploratory qualitative design framed within a critical disability studies lens, 28 representatives from professional organizations across 10 HHS professions in Canada participated in semistructured interviews. Data were analysed to identify key themes related to their perceived roles and perspectives on challenges faced by SRA/PRA, and how organizational policies impact inclusion.
resultsThree key themes highlighted the multilayered challenges of acknowledging and supporting SRA/PRA: (1) We do not know what we do not know; (2) not our responsibility; and (3) between a rock and a hard place. Many participants reported that this study marked the first time they had explicitly considered SRA/PRA within their organizational mandate, a foundational finding underpinning all three themes. Findings revealed limited awareness of SRA/PRA needs and experiences within organizational structure, uncertainty about their responsibility for addressing accessibility, often in favour of public protection or professional standards, and systemic obstacles constraining their ability to implement inclusive policies. DISCUSSION: Inclusion of SRA/PRA represents a 'wicked problem': While equity and inclusion are already embedded in many professional mandates, tacit ableist discourses constrain the agency of professional organization representatives and perpetuate the systemic marginalization of SRA/PRA in HHS professions. Results provide insights and recommendations for dismantling these barriers and promoting equitable and accessible pathways into and through HHS education and practice.
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.