Effectiveness of an Educational Module on Dental Hygiene Students' Attitudes Towards Persons with Disabilities

References

1. ↵
   1. U.S. Census Bureau

   . American community survey 1-year estimates - disability characteristics [Internet]. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Census Bureau: 2015, [cited 2017 February 20]. Available from:https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_1YR_S1810&prodType=table.
2. ↵
   1. Institute of Medicine, National Research Council

   . Improving access to oral health care for vulnerable and underserved populations. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2011. P. 18-9.
3. ↵
   1. Inglehart MR,
   2. Schneider BK,
   3. Bauer PA

   . Providing care for underserved patients: endodontic residents', faculty members', and endodontists' educational experiences and professional attitudes and behavior. J Dent Educ. 2014 May;78(5):735-44.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
4. ↵
   1. Institute of Medicine

   . Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2001.p. 5-7.
5. ↵
   1. Institute of Medicine

   . Envisioning the national health care quality report. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2001.p. 41-3.
6. ↵
   1. Smith DL

   . Disparities in patient-physician communication for persons with a disability from the 2006 medical expenditure panel survey (MEPS). Disability Health J. 2009 Oct;2(4):206-15.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality

   . National healthcare disparities report [Internet] Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010, [cited 2011 July 22]. Available from: www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr10/nhdr10.pdf.
8. ↵
   1. Drainoni ML,
   2. Lee-Hood E,
   3. Tobias C,
   4. et al

   . Cross-disability experiences of barriers to health-care access. J Disabil Policy Stud. Sep 2006;17:101 - 15.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Morrison EH,
   2. George V,
   3. Mosqueda L

   . Primary care for adults with physical disabilities: perception from consumer and provider focus groups. Fam Med. 2008 Oct;40(9):645-51.

   OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Becker H,
    2. Stuifbergen A,
    3. Tinkle M

    . Reproductive health care experiences of women with physical disabilities: a qualitative study. Arch Phys Med. 1997 Dec;78(12, Suppl):S26-33.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Suchman AL,
    2. Matthews DA

    . What makes the patient-doctor relationship therapeutic? Exploring the connexional dimension of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 1988 Jan;108(1):125-30.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 1. Reynolds WJ,
    2. Scott B,
    3. Jessiman WC

    . Empathy has not been measured in clients' terms or effectively taught: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs. 1999 Nov;30(5):1177-85.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. ↵
    1. Rogers CR

    . Empathic: an unappreciated way of being. Couns Psychol. Jun 1975;5(2):2-10.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
14. 1. Spiro H

    . What is empathy and can it be taught? Ann Intern Med. 1992 May 15;116(10):843-46.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. ↵
    1. Larson EB,
    2. Yao X

    . Clinical empathy as emotional labor in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA. 2005 Mar 2;293(9):1100-06.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. ↵
    1. Reynolds WJ,
    2. Scott B

    . Do nurses and other professional helpers normally display much empathy? J Adv Nurs. 2000 Jan;31(1):226-34.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. ↵
    1. Moore LA

    . Being empathetic: benefits and challenges for the clinician and client. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010 Jan-Feb;17(1):20-9.

    OpenUrlPubMed
18. ↵
    1. Williams J,
    2. Stickley T

    . Empathy and nurse education. Nurse Educ Today. 2010 Nov;30(8):752-55.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. ↵
    1. Young A,
    2. Connor-Greene P,
    3. Waldvogel J,
    4. Paul C

    . Poetry across the curriculum: four disciplinary perspectives. Lang Learn. 2003;6(2):14-44.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Connor-Greene PA,
    2. Murdoch JW,
    3. Young A,
    4. Paul C

    . Poetry: it's not just for English class anymore. Teach Psychol. 2005;32(4):215-21.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
21. ↵
    1. Smeltzer SC,
    2. Sharts-Hopko NC,
    3. Ott BB,
    4. et al

    . Perspectives of women with disabilities on reaching those who are hard to reach. J Neurosci Nurs. 2007 Jun;39(3):163-71.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
22. ↵
    1. Nosek M,
    2. Hughes R,
    3. Howland C,
    4. et al

    . The meaning of health for women with physical disabilities: a qualitative analysis. Fam Community Health. 2004 Jan-Mar;27(1):6-21.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. ↵
    1. Thomas C

    . Medicine, gender, and disability: disabled women's health care encounters. Health Care Women. Int 2001Apr-May;22(3):245-62.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
24. ↵
    1. Iezzoni LI

    . Make no assumptions: communication between persons with disabilities and clinicians. Assist Technol. 2006 Fall;18(18):212-19.

    OpenUrlPubMed
25. ↵
    1. Iezzoni LI,
    2. Davis RB,
    3. Soukup J,
    4. O' Day B

    . Quality dimensions that most concerned people with physical and sensory disabilities. Arch Intern Med. 2003 Sept 22;163(17):2085-92.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. ↵
    1. American Dental Association, Commission on Dental Accreditation. [Internet]

    . Chicago: American Dental Association; 2013 [cited 2016 December 14]. Available from: http://www.ada.org/~/media/CODA/Files/predoc.ashx.
27. ↵
    1. Miller SR

    . A curriculum focused on informed empathy improves attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Perspect Med Educ. 2013 Jun;2(3):114-25.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Yuker HE,
    2. Block JR,
    3. Young J

    . The measurements of attitudes towards disabled persons. Human resources center, Alterson (NY): Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare;1970. 178p.
29. ↵
    1. Lam W,
    2. Gunukula S,
    3. McGuigan D,
    4. et al

    . Validated instruments used to measure attitudes of healthcare students and professionals towards patients with physical disability: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010 Nov 9;7(1):55.

    OpenUrlPubMed
30. ↵
    1. Yuker HE,
    2. Block JR

    . Research with the attitudes towards disabled persons scales (ATDP) 1960 - 1985. Hempstead (NY): Hofstra University; 1986. P. 1-87.
31. ↵
    1. Bu X,
    2. Wu YB

    . Development and psychometric evaluation of the instrument: attitude toward patient advocacy. Res Nurs Health. 2008 Feb; 31:63-75.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
32. ↵
    1. Davis MH

    . A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog Sel Doc Psychol. 1980;10:85-104.

    OpenUrl