RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Given the impetus to improve accessibility for diverse learners seeking physical therapist education, it is critical that all entry points to access information have minimal barriers. This study identified Web site accessibility barriers among Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs in the United States. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: Web site accessibility has been evaluated among many institutions of higher education, but none focused on DPT education. Individuals with disabilities may be adversely affected by Web site accessibility barriers. SUBJECTS: This cross-sectional study included 262 DPT programs in the United States. Doctor of Physical Therapy program characteristics collected were geographic region, institutional control type (public/private), medical school affiliation, accreditation status, total institutional enrollment, and DPT class size. METHODS: The Web Accessibility Evaluation (WAVE) Tool assessed data related to accessibility barriers among DPT program homepage Uniform Resource Locators. Three primary outcomes from the WAVE Tool included WAVE Total Errors, Error Density, and Total Alerts. RESULTS: Web site homepage accessibility barriers varied among programs for WAVE Total Errors (range 0-150), Error Density (range 0-14.6%), and Total Alerts (range 1-331). Median Total Errors were greater among private (9.0) versus public (5.0) institution Web sites (P < .001). Median Total Errors were greater among those institutions not affiliated with a medical school (9.0) compared with those that had an affiliated medical school (7.0) (P = .04). No differences in accessibility barriers were identified according to geographic region or accreditation status (P > .05). Median Total Errors were significantly different between institutional enrollment quartiles (H[3] = 17.9, P < .001), with no differences noted between DPT class size quartiles for any outcome (P > .05). Generally, weak-fair inverse correlations were observed between student enrollment for the institution and Web site accessibility barrier outcomes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Homepage accessibility barriers varied greatly among DPT programs in the United States. Factors, including being a private institution, no medical school affiliation, and lower institutional enrollment, were related to increased accessibility barriers.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) outcomes are affected by numerous variables, including the clinical conversation. When good therapeutic/working alliances are formed, congruent clinical conversations can lead to improved CMP outcomes. Identifying patient/provider attitudes, beliefs, and biases in CMP that can influence the clinical conversation, and thus clinical management decisions, is foundationally important. DESIGN: The aims of this systematic review were to 1) summarize the evidence of the attitudes and beliefs of patients and health care providers (HCPs) involved in the clinical conversation about CMP, and 2) examine whether and how these perceptions impacted the process of care. METHODS: A systematic search of CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Sociology Database in ProQuest, and Web of Science used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies were those investigating vulnerable adult populations with chronic pain. Study bias was examined with the Downs and Black tool. RESULTS: Seven retrospective studies were included. When making pharmaceutical management decisions, HCPs demonstrated negative implicit biases toward minorities and women. When making referrals to multidisciplinary care, HCPs demonstrated negative implicit biases toward women with lower educational attainment. Unmet patient expectations resulted in higher dropout rates at multidisciplinary pain management programs. Patients' trust was influenced by the health care setting, and patients often had limited options secondary to health insurance type/status. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that patients with CMP may experience a marginalized process of care due to HCPs' negative implicit biases, unmet patient expectations, and the health care setting. Results suggest several factors may contribute to inequitable care and the recalcitrant nature of CMP, particularly in vulnerable populations with limited health care choices.
