Social Justice Education in CAATE-Accredited Post-Baccalaureate Athletic Training Programs.

Social justice education (SJE) prepares clinicians to provide patient-centered care. Our purpose was to assess SJE in CAATE-accredited, post-baccalaureate professional athletic training programs. We used a cross-sectional, online survey. Individuals (n=215) in their last year of post-baccalaureate professional education or those who were within 6 months post-graduation participated. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding types of education, topics of education, perceived confidence, and levels of agreement regarding identifying, addressing, and applying social justice concepts. Students from different cultural ethnicities reported having different educational experiences relative to their formal and informal instruction. Significant differences were identified between cultural ethnicity groups on perceptions of professors' knowledge (p<0.001), preceptors' knowledge (p<0.001), and agreement their program prepared them to address social justice issues (p<0.001). Two domains emerged from the open-ended responses: 1) social justice defined and 2) educational needs. Participants described social justice as equality, equity, and justice for minoritized people. Participants described SJE as not occurring or limited, and they expressed a desire for active practical experiences from heterogeneous and unbiased sources. As programs move to incorporate CAATE standards, more frequent and varied SJE is expected from minoritized students.

WORKPLACE CLIMATE FOR SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITIES IN ATHLETIC TRAINING.

CONTEXT: Sexual and gender minorities (SGM) are individuals with sexual orientations, gender identities and/or expressions that differ from cultural norms. SGMs often face workplace discrimination and report decreased physical and emotional well-being from discrimination. OBJECTIVE: To explore the workplace climate of SGM athletic trainers (AT). DESIGN: Sequential mixed-methods study. SETTING: Web-based survey and interviews. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Criterion sampling of SGM ATs (117 survey participants and 12 interview participants). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We modified the LGBTQ Inclusion Assessment and the Organizational Self-Assessment for the survey and developed a semi-structured interview script (scale-level content validity index=0.94). We used means, standard deviations, frequencies and the consensual qualitative research tradition to characterize participant responses. Trustworthiness was established through reflexivity (researchers checking bias throughout the research process), member-checking, multi-analyst triangulation, internal and external auditing. RESULTS: Participants indicated their workplace was inclusive (24, 20.5%), somewhat inclusive (29, 24.8%), not inclusive (14, 12.0%), or did not indicate at all (50, 42.7%). Respondents most often indicated they were unsure of the stage of change their organizations and organizational units were in addressing LGBTQPIA+ issues in the workplace as well as specific actions taken for inclusion. Two domains emerged from the interview data: safety and inclusion. The safety domain represents aspects of the workplace climate that make the participants feel safe including organizational initiatives (12/12), patient-centered policies (7/12), local and federal regulations (7/12), and signaling (12/12). The inclusion domain represents how the participants felt a sense of belonging to the organization through their own experience (12/12), through the experiences of their patients (9/12), and through an infrastructure designed for inclusion (12/12). Participants expressed both the affirmative and the negative feelings of safety and inclusion throughout their responses. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations must take both structural and cultural actions to address the issues of exclusion and lack of safety.