↓ Skip to main content

Medical Schools’ Willingness to Accommodate Medical Students with Sensory and Physical Disabilities: Ethical Foundations of a Functional Challenge to “Organic” Technical Standards

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
62 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Medical Schools’ Willingness to Accommodate Medical Students with Sensory and Physical Disabilities: Ethical Foundations of a Functional Challenge to “Organic” Technical Standards
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, October 2016
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.medu1-1610
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael McKee, Ben Case, Maureen Fausone, Philip Zazove, Alicia Ouellette, Michael D Fetters

Abstract

Students with sensory and physical disabilities are underrepresented in medical schools despite the availability of assistive technologies and accommodations. Unfortunately, many medical schools have adopted restrictive "organic" technical standards based on deficits rather than on the ability to do the work. Compelling ethical considerations of justice and beneficence should prompt change in this arena. Medical schools should instead embrace "functional" technical standards that permit accommodations for disabilities and update their admissions policies to promote applications from qualified students with disabilities. Medical schools thus should focus on what students with disabilities can do, rather than what they cannot do, because these students further diversify the health care profession and improve our ability to care for an expanding population of patients with disabilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Psychology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2019.
All research outputs
#745,531
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,930
of 334,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 58.6. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,705 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.