• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

美国顶尖本科生院校的无障碍环境建设和残疾人包容性。

Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions.

机构信息

Johns Hopkins Disability Health Research Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.

WebAIM, Institute for Disability Research, Policy, and Practice, Utah State University, Logan, UT, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 23;17(11):e0277249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277249. eCollection 2022.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0277249
PMID:36417345
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9683566/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is limited data to assess, track, or quantify accessibility and disability inclusion across universities.

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional study assessed disability inclusion and accessibility at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded undergraduate programs in the United States. We hypothesized that there is no association between NIH funding and the University Disability Inclusion Score.

METHODS

A novel tool, the University Disability Inclusion Score assessed disability inclusion and accessibility using 10 indicators spanning 4 categories: (1) accessibility of built and virtual environment, (2) public image of disability inclusion, (3) accommodations processes and procedures, and (4) grievance policy. Based upon the total points (out of a total score of 100), each university was assigned a letter grade (A-F).

RESULTS

Of the top 50 NIH-funded institutions, 6% received an A grade on the Score, while 60% received D or F. The mean scores were 15.2 (SD = 5) for accessibility of built and virtual environment (20 points), 10 (SD = 3) for public image of disability inclusion (20 points), 30.6 (SD = 10) for accommodations processes and procedures (50 points), and 8.1 (SD = 3) for grievance policy (10 points).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest room for improvement in disability inclusion and accessibility among top university recipients of NIH funding. To provide an equitable academic experience, universities must prioritize disability inclusion.

摘要

背景

目前评估、跟踪或量化大学无障碍环境和残疾包容度的数据有限。

目的

本横断面研究评估了美国前 50 名美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助的本科生项目的残疾包容度和无障碍环境。我们假设 NIH 资助与大学残疾包容度评分之间没有关联。

方法

我们使用涵盖 4 个类别的 10 个指标开发了一种新工具,即大学残疾包容度评分,来评估残疾包容度和无障碍环境:(1)实体和虚拟环境的可达性,(2)残疾包容度的公众形象,(3)住宿流程和程序,以及(4)申诉政策。根据总分(满分 100 分),每所大学被分配一个字母等级(A-F)。

结果

在 NIH 资助的前 50 名机构中,有 6%的机构在评分中获得 A 级,而 60%的机构获得 D 级或 F 级。得分情况如下:实体和虚拟环境可达性的平均得分为 15.2(SD = 5)(满分 20 分),残疾包容度的公众形象平均得分为 10(SD = 3)(满分 20 分),住宿流程和程序的平均得分为 30.6(SD = 10)(满分 50 分),申诉政策的平均得分为 8.1(SD = 3)(满分 10 分)。

结论

我们的研究结果表明, NIH 资助的顶尖大学在残疾包容度和无障碍环境方面还有改进的空间。为了提供公平的学术体验,大学必须优先考虑残疾包容度。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99d7/9683566/c87d76398729/pone.0277249.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99d7/9683566/76aae21714be/pone.0277249.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99d7/9683566/b48fa5c5b653/pone.0277249.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99d7/9683566/c87d76398729/pone.0277249.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99d7/9683566/76aae21714be/pone.0277249.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99d7/9683566/b48fa5c5b653/pone.0277249.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99d7/9683566/c87d76398729/pone.0277249.g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S. Undergraduate Institutions.美国顶尖本科生院校的无障碍环境建设和残疾人包容性。
PLoS One. 2022 Nov 23;17(11):e0277249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277249. eCollection 2022.
2
Is there a relationship between National Institutes of Health funding and research impact on academic urology?美国国立卫生研究院的资助与学术泌尿科研究的影响力之间是否存在关系?
J Urol. 2013 Sep;190(3):999-1003. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3186. Epub 2013 Mar 1.
3
Patterns of Recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding to Diagnostic Radiology Departments: Analysis Using the NIH RePORTER System.美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)近期对诊断放射科的资助模式:使用NIH RePORTER系统进行分析
Acad Radiol. 2017 Sep;24(9):1162-1168. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.02.018. Epub 2017 May 18.
4
Trends in Clinical Research Including Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Participants Funded by the US National Institutes of Health, 1992 to 2018.1992 年至 2018 年美国国立卫生研究院资助的包括亚裔美国人、夏威夷原住民和太平洋岛民参与者在内的临床研究趋势。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Jul 3;2(7):e197432. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7432.
5
Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities.美国大学关于教师利益冲突的政策。
JAMA. 2000 Nov 1;284(17):2203-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.17.2203.
6
Comparing cutaneous research funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) with the US skin disease burden.比较美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助的皮肤研究与美国皮肤疾病负担。
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Sep;73(3):383-91.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.04.039. Epub 2015 Jun 4.
7
Current Status of National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Women Surgeon-Scientists.女性外科医生科学家获得美国国立卫生研究院研究经费的现状。
JAMA Surg. 2022 Dec 1;157(12):1134-1140. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.5157.
8
Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons.学术型胸外科医生 NIH 资助的纵向分析。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Mar;163(3):872-879.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.01.088. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
9
The Role of PhD Faculty in Advancing Research in Departments of Surgery.博士生导师在外科各科室推进研究工作中的作用。
Ann Surg. 2017 Jan;265(1):111-115. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001657.
10
Scholarly investigation into otitis media: who is receiving funding support from the National Institutes of Health?关于中耳炎的学术研究:谁在接受美国国立卫生研究院的资助支持?
Laryngoscope. 2015 Jul;125(7):1708-14. doi: 10.1002/lary.25118. Epub 2015 Feb 13.

引用本文的文献

1
A comprehensive evaluation of life sciences data resources reveals significant accessibility barriers.对生命科学数据资源的全面评估揭示了显著的获取障碍。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 2;15(1):23676. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-08731-7.
2
Visual attentional differences in psychology students with and without disabilities: a pilot study assessing the flanker task for prescriptive visual accommodative technologies.有残疾和无残疾心理学专业学生的视觉注意力差异:一项评估用于规范性视觉调节技术的侧翼任务的初步研究。
Front Psychol. 2025 Mar 27;16:1484536. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1484536. eCollection 2025.
3
Gaps in disability inclusion across universities in the United States.

本文引用的文献

1
The Unexamined Diversity: Disability Policies and Practices in US Graduate Medical Education Programs.未经审视的多样性:美国研究生医学教育项目中的残疾政策和实践。
J Grad Med Educ. 2020 Oct;12(5):615-619. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-19-00940.1.
2
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).《家庭教育权利与隐私法案》(FERPA)。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007 Mar;2(1):101. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.1.101.
美国各大学在残疾包容方面存在的差距。
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 22;20(1):e0317920. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317920. eCollection 2025.
4
Experiences of researchers with disabilities at academic institutions in the United States.残疾研究人员在美国学术机构中的经历。
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 15;19(8):e0299612. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299612. eCollection 2024.
5
TRansit ACessibility Tool (TRACT): Developing a novel scoring system for public transportation system accessibility.公交可达性工具(TRACT):开发一种用于公共交通系统可达性的新型评分系统。
J Transp Health. 2024 Jan;34. doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2023.101742. Epub 2023 Dec 12.
6
The development of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program enrollment accessibility (SNAP-access) score.补充营养援助计划登记可及性(SNAP-access)评分的发展
Disabil Health J. 2022 Oct;15(4):101366. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2022.101366. Epub 2022 Aug 6.