Computational phylogenetics reveal histories of sign languages.

Sign languages are naturally occurring languages. As such, their emergence and spread reflect the histories of their communities. However, limitations in historical recordkeeping and linguistic documentation have hindered the diachronic analysis of sign languages. In this work, we used computational phylogenetic methods to study family structure among 19 sign languages from deaf communities worldwide. We used phonologically coded lexical data from contemporary languages to infer relatedness and suggest that these methods can help study regular form changes in sign languages. The inferred trees are consistent in key respects with known historical information but challenge certain assumed groupings and surpass analyses made available by traditional methods. Moreover, the phylogenetic inferences are not reducible to geographic distribution but do affirm the importance of geopolitical forces in the histories of human languages.

The Impact of COVID-19 and Pandemic Mitigation Measures on Persons With Sensory Impairment.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation measures on persons with sensory impairments (SI), including visual impairments (VI) and hearing impairments (HI). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Adults with VI (best-corrected visual acuity <20/60 in the better-seeing eye), HI (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes), and age- and sex-matched controls (n = 375) were recruited from the University of Michigan. The 34-item Coronavirus Disability Survey was administered. Both χ2 tests and logistic regression were used to compare survey responses between groups. RESULTS: All groups reported high levels of disruption of daily life, with 80% reporting "a fair amount" or "a lot" of disruption (VI: 76%, HI: 83%, CT: 82%, P = .33). Participants with VI had greater difficulty with day-to-day activities and were more likely to cite the following reasons: caregiver was worried about COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR]VI = 7.2, 95% CI = 3.5-14.4, P < .001) and decreased availability of public transportation (ORVI = 5.0, 95% CI = 1.5-15.6, P = .006). Participants with VI, but not HI, showed a trend toward increased difficulty accessing medical care (ORVI = 2.0, 95% CI = 0.99-4.0, P = .052) and began relying more on others for day-to-day assistance (ORVI = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.6-5.7, P < .001). Overall, 30% reported difficulty obtaining trusted information about the pandemic. Those with VI reported more difficulty seeing or hearing trusted information (ORVI = 6.1, 95% CI = 1.6-22.1, P = .006). Employed participants with HI were more likely to report a reduction in wages (ORHI = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.2-5.3, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with VI have experienced increased disruption and challenges in daily activities related to the pandemic. People with SI may benefit from targeted policy approaches to the current pandemic and future stressors. Minimal differences in some survey measures may be due to the large impact of the pandemic on the population as a whole. The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic and public health mitigation measures have had an exceedingly large impact around the globe. As of the time of writing, more than 114 million global cases (28 million US) had been diagnosed, and there had been more than 2.5 million fatalities attributed to COVID-19 (517,000 US).1,2.

The Unexamined Diversity: Disability Policies and Practices in US Graduate Medical Education Programs.

BACKGROUND: Graduate medical education (GME) institutions must ensure equal access for trainees with disabilities through appropriate and reasonable accommodations and policies. To date, no comprehensive review of the availability and inclusiveness of GME policies for residents with disabilities exists. OBJECTIVE: We examined institutions' compliance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements and alignment with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) policy considerations. METHODS: Between June and August 2019, we conducted a directed content analysis of GME institutional policies using the AAMC report on disability considerations and the ACGME institutional requirements as a framework. RESULTS: Of the 47 GME handbooks available for review, 32 (68%) included a disability policy. Forty-one of the 47 (87%) handbooks maintained a nondiscrimination statement that included disability. Twelve of the 32 (38%) handbooks included a specific disability policy and language that encouraged disclosure, and 17 (53%) included a statement about the confidential documentation used to determine reasonable accommodations. Nineteen of the 32 (59%) maintained a clear procedure for disclosing disabilities and requesting accommodations. CONCLUSIONS: While disability policies are present in many of the largest GME institutions, it is not yet a standardized practice. For institutions maintaining a disability policy, many lack key elements identified as best practices in the AAMC considerations.