Dionna Mmus Bidny
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Dionna Mmus Bidny has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Aaron PhD Konopasky
L.A. Maggio is professor, director of research, Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois Chicago, College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; ORCID: https://orcid.org/
1 shared publication- Abigail Konopasky
Department of Psychiatry, Northwell, New Hyde Park, USA
1 shared publication - Joseph A. Costello
University of Illinois, College of Medicine Department of Medical Education Chicago, Illinois
1 shared publication - Kirsten R. Brown
Department of Health Professions Education Bethesda, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
1 shared publication - Lauren A. Maggio
Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois, College of Medicine
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 27 June 2025
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Academic Medicine
- Vol. 100 (10S) , S64-S73
Disability in Undergraduate Medical Education in the United States: A Scoping Review
Purpose: Students with disabilities remain disproportionately underrepresented in undergraduate medical education (UME). This scoping review synthesizes the literature on undergraduate medical students with disabilities in the United States to identify the purpose of the literature and map how disability is portrayed. Method: The authors searched 8 databases for relevant publications published between January 2008 through August 2024. Publication inclusion was determined using a 2-phase title/abstract screening process and full-text review conducted by 2 independent authors. Data extraction focused on characterizing the publication, followed by an analysis of the publications’ goals and how disability was portrayed. Results: The authors identified 10,491 publications; 81 were included, most of which were journal articles ( n = 78). In 23 publications, at least one author disclosed their identity as disabled. Five main goals were identified in the publication purpose statements, including describing ( n = 50), calling for action ( n = 25), evaluating ( n = 24), arguing ( n = 14), and creating ( n = 14). Overall, disability was portrayed as (1) diversity, (2) deficiency, (3) inherently connected with accommodation and technical standards, and (4) a place of habitual omissions. Two studies discussed disability in relation to intersectional identities, and 2 used gender or race in multivariable models. No studies explicitly focused on UME and disabled students of color, disability and gender diversity, or disabled LGBQ+ students. Conclusions: This scoping review identified that disability is portrayed from an abled viewpoint as race- and gender-neutral, static, and as diversity, deficit, or a legal construct. Future researchers should consider how disability is conceptualized and the use of intersectional frameworks.
- 27 June 2025
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Academic Medicine
- Vol. 100 (10S) , S64-S73
Disability in Undergraduate Medical Education in the United States: A Scoping Review
Purpose: Students with disabilities remain disproportionately underrepresented in undergraduate medical education (UME). This scoping review synthesizes the literature on undergraduate medical students with disabilities in the United States to identify the purpose of the literature and map how disability is portrayed. Method: The authors searched 8 databases for relevant publications published between January 2008 through August 2024. Publication inclusion was determined using a 2-phase title/abstract screening process and full-text review conducted by 2 independent authors. Data extraction focused on characterizing the publication, followed by an analysis of the publications’ goals and how disability was portrayed. Results: The authors identified 10,491 publications; 81 were included, most of which were journal articles ( n = 78). In 23 publications, at least one author disclosed their identity as disabled. Five main goals were identified in the publication purpose statements, including describing ( n = 50), calling for action ( n = 25), evaluating ( n = 24), arguing ( n = 14), and creating ( n = 14). Overall, disability was portrayed as (1) diversity, (2) deficiency, (3) inherently connected with accommodation and technical standards, and (4) a place of habitual omissions. Two studies discussed disability in relation to intersectional identities, and 2 used gender or race in multivariable models. No studies explicitly focused on UME and disabled students of color, disability and gender diversity, or disabled LGBQ+ students. Conclusions: This scoping review identified that disability is portrayed from an abled viewpoint as race- and gender-neutral, static, and as diversity, deficit, or a legal construct. Future researchers should consider how disability is conceptualized and the use of intersectional frameworks.