A curriculum focused on informed empathy improves attitudes toward persons with disabilities

Abstract

Empathy is an important component of the provider-patient relationship. In the United States one in five persons has a disability. Persons with disabilities perceive gaps in health care providers’ understanding of their health care preferences and needs. The purpose of this study was to use valid and reliable assessment methods to investigate the association between empathy and attitudes toward persons with disabilities and advocacy. An educational module was developed to enhance health care students’ capacity for informed empathy. Pre- and post-assessment measures included the Attitude toward Disabled Persons scale (ATDP), the Attitudes toward Patient Advocacy Microsocial scale (AMIA) and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). ATDP (t(94) = −5.95, p = .000) and AMIA (t(92) = −5.99, p = .000) scores increased significantly after the education module. Correlations between the pre- or post-module ATDP or AMIA scores and the IRI scores were not significant. Empathy in general may not be sufficient to ensure optimal attitudes toward persons with disabilities or advocacy in pre-health care professionals. However, a curriculum based on informed empathy and focused on the experiences of persons with disabilities can result in more positive attitudes toward and advocacy for people with disabilities.

Attitudes towards people with physical or intellectual disabilities among nursing, social work and medical students

“…The ATDP scores of nursing students in this study were comparable to those of Greek (Matziou et al., ) and Turkish students (Girli, Sarı, Kırkım, & Narin, ; Uysal et al., ), somewhat lower than those reported for Hong Kong healthcare students and professionals (Au & Man, ), but noticeably lower compared to Dutch, US and New Zealand nursing students (Goddard & Jordan, ; Miller, ; Seccombe, ; Ten Klooster et al., ; Tervo et al., ).…”

“…However, “attitudes are learned dispositions…” (Tervo et al., , p. 908), and thus, they can be appropriately shaped. In designing undergraduate and continuing education curricula, it should be considered that it is not merely the amount of knowledge and contact, but also the quality of contact and the level of support and mentoring that can form more positive attitudes (Chan & Cheng, ; McManus et al., ; Miller, ; Page & Islam, ; Seccombe, ). In addition, echoing the results of Brown and Kalaitzidis () and Jones, Winch, Strube, Mitchell, and Henderson (), we should keep in mind that individual attitudes are not the only determinant of compassionate and high‐quality nursing care.…”

Stimulating Intrinsic Motivation in Millennial Students: A New Generation, a New Approach

“…The modalities that can be employed include, but are not limited to, screen‐based computer simulators (Abdel Meguid and Khalil, ; Havyer et al, ), standardized patients (Marks, ), complex task trainers (Rogers and Tutty, ; Christensen et al, ), and realistic patient simulators (Alcamo et al, ; Hill et al, ). These tools can be easily adapted to represent a very wide variety of client conditions (Miller, ; Kusurkar, ) that can be t ailored to different levels of difficulty ( Strombach et al, ; Raza et al, ) . Moreover, simulation offers students the opportunity to observe their individual actions (Raab, ; Khalil et al, ), repeat training exercises (Ciliberto et al, ; Khalil et al, ), and most importantly learn from their mistakes (Archer, ; Augustyniak et al, ).…”

“…Test‐enhanced learning practices are being increasingly included as an integral part of the teaching curriculum (Sinclair et al, ; Pandey et al, ) due to their ability to provide instant rewards (Haro et al, ; Strombach et al, ; Streilein et al, ). However, testing in any form always evokes a certain amount of anxiety in students (Miller, ; Raza et al, ), as it is perceived by them as an evaluation of their knowledge (Walker et al, ; Ames et al, ; Manzi et al, ) or understanding (Younan, ; Khalil et al, ) of a particular topic based on their performance. Hence, test‐enhanced learning practices should emphasize no‐stakes or low‐stakes scenarios (Karpicke and Bauernschmidt, ; Strombach et al, ; Raza et al, ), where the primary purpose is to enhance recall to promote student learning (Sluka et al, ; van Gessel et al, ).…”

“…They are comprised of students and faculty who share common interests and passions and are typically headed by faculty mentors who are experts in their field. However, learning communities will only be effective if they address the specific objectives of health care education that include: service (Jacobs et al, ; Skodova et al, ; Tackett et al, ), advocacy (Gonzalo et al, ; McBride and Drake, ), research (Aboul‐Fotouh and Asghar‐Ali, ; Burch et al, ), global health (Toohey et al, ), and wellness (Miller, ; Oommen et al, ). Additionally, it is vital that these learning communities ensure that students “learn” and are not simply “taught” by identifying the current level of student achievement, establishing goals for improvement, and periodically evaluating evidences of progress (Mor et al, ; Rowland and Kumagai, ).…”