The health threat posed by the novel coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic has particular implications for people with disabilities, including vulnerability to exposure and complications, and concerns about the role of ableism in access to treatment and medical rationing decisions. Shortages of necessary medical equipment to treat COVID-19 have prompted triage guidelines outlining the ways in which lifesaving equipment, such as mechanical ventilators and intensive care unit beds, may need to be rationed among affected individuals. In this article, we explore the realities of medical rationing, and various approaches to triage and prioritization. We discuss the psychology of ableism, perceptions about quality of life, social determinants of health, and how attitudes toward disability can affect rationing decisions and access to care. In addition to the grassroots advocacy and activism undertaken by the disability community, psychology is rich in its contributions to the role of attitudes, prejudice, and discriminatory behavior on the social fabric of society. We call on psychologists to advocate for social justice in pandemic preparedness, promote disability justice in health care settings, call for transparency and accountability in rationing approaches, and support policy changes for macro- and microallocation strategies to proactively reduce the need for rationing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Discriminatory and ableist health care rationing policies have raised serious concern in the disability community during the novel coronavirus pandemic. These concerns reflect the long-standing devaluation of disabled lives and place considerable weight on the disability community during this already stressful time. Nondisabled psychologists should work to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities by amplifying the voices and concerns of disabled activists so that history does not repeat itself. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI) is a genetic disorder also known as ‘brittle bone disease’. The clinical manifestation of OI shows a wide variation. Therefore, care for patients with OI requires an interdisciplinary approach. The effectiveness of particular interventions and treatment protocols of interdisciplinary teams is not clear due to a non-standardized and wide variation of patient outcomes thus making the comparison of outcome measures available in the literature difficult. It is only by agreeing on a common, standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of OI that comparisons across interdisciplinary treatment centers for OI will be possible in the future. Methods: The Key4OI international interdisciplinary working group of 27 members used a consensus-driven modified Delphi approach to develop a set of global outcome measures for patients with OI. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), was used to define domains and organize the outcomes from the literature search. After reviewing the outcomes extracted from the literature, trials and registries, the working group agreed on a final selection of domains and their definition (ICF definition as well as a lay description). These domains were then presented to the focus groups who prioritized the outcome domains by taking into account the items important to the OI community. All content was collected and analyzed and final domains were determined. A consensus of appropriate measuring instruments for each domain was reached with Delphi rounds. The entire approach was in line with the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement ICHOM methodology. Results: More than 400 different outcome measures were identified in our literature search. After three Delphi rounds, 24 domains were selected. After the focus group sessions, the number of domains were reduced to 15. A consensus was reached on the measuring instruments to cover these domains for both children and adults. Conclusion: The Key4OI project resulted in standard set of outcome measures focused on the needs and wishes of individuals with OI and their families. This outcome set will enable healthcare teams and systems to compare and to improve their care pathways and quality of care worldwide. Further studies are needed to evaluate the implementation of this standardized outcome set.

This article describes the curriculum of an interprofessional training program tasked with teaching policy and advocacy knowledge and skills specific to the underserved population of individuals with developmental disabilities. The program, guided by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau's Leadership Competencies, emphasizes integrating professionals in health disciplines, including psychology, together with individuals with disabilities and their family members for shared learning experiences. The article discusses the importance of incorporating advocacy training into preparation programs for future psychologists. Strategies are described in the context of Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction and include goal development and mentorship, experiential opportunities, and didactic teaching. Lessons learned and next steps, specifically related to establishing efficient evaluation procedures, are discussed. Psychology graduate education programs and other training programs, especially those that have an interprofessional focus, may benefit from incorporating similar strategies to strengthen their advocacy curriculum and foster students and trainees to become skilled advocates.

This Viewpoint discusses how the National Institutes of Health designation of individuals with disabilities as a health disparity population can boost

Policies and practices around prenatal testing including the highly commercialized noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) illuminates discourse related to disability, including the human rights of people with disabilities, but also stigma and negative stereotypes. NIPT has changed the landscape of prenatal testing because it is a screening, not testing, tool that is considered safer than invasive methods and can be administered in the first trimester using a small sample of the mother’s blood. Since genetic literacy and access to testing varies internationally, the cultural context of these advancements in technology must be considered alongside the backdrop of disability policy. Advancements in prenatal testing have accelerated faster than governments and societies have been able to reach consensus on their boundaries. There are multiple ethical implications and the potential for adverse societal outcomes. This chapter will address these as well as recommendations for policymaking through a disability justice lens.