Rutgers research also finds discussing salary early in the interview process hurts all candidates

A new study by Rutgers University researchers finds that job candidates with disabilities are more likely to make a positive first impression on prospective employers when they promote technical skills rather than soft skills, such as their ability to lead others.

The findings, published in the International Journal of Conflict Management, contrast this with the results for candidates without disabilities who were positively evaluated when they highlighted either hard or soft skills during initial job interviews.

“Job interviews are challenging for everyone, but particularly so for people with disabilities who have always had difficulties presenting themselves favorably to gain employment,” said Rutgers Business School professor Mason Ameri.

“People with disabilities encounter an implicit bias that they will not be as productive as their non-disabled peers,” said Ameri, who co-authored the study. “Knowing how to navigate the conversation with potential employers is critical for leveling the playing field.”

In three studies, 1,711 participants watched videos of candidates – either visibly seated in a wheelchair or not – using influence tactics to answer an opening question during an interview for a project manager position. Participants were asked to rate their perceptions of the job candidate’s employability and appropriate level of salary, as well as how trustworthy they appeared.

Among the findings:

• Employability: For candidates without disabilities, discussion of hard skills or soft skills led to more favorable perceptions. While the expression of hard skills similarly improved the employability rating of the candidate with the disability, discussion of soft skills did not.
• Pay: When candidates with disabilities discussed salary early in the job interview, it appeared to hurt them more than when candidates without disabilities raised the same topic. Still, even for candidates without disabilities, announcing a salary figure so early in the process seemed to be off-putting in terms of whether they should get the job at all.
• Trustworthiness: Candidates with disabilities were not viewed as trustworthy regardless of the tactic they used. For candidates without disabilities, ratings of trustworthiness increased when they discussed hard or soft skills. However, other tactics such as signaling alternative offers or suggesting a salary figure did not have the same positive effect.

“Influence tactics such as emphasizing your skills and abilities are a good idea but don’t necessarily work the same way for everyone,” said Terri Kurtzberg, co-author and professor at Rutgers Business School. “Instead, people with disabilities should focus on job-related hard skills and competencies instead of softer skills and warmth. This choice accelerated positive impressions of employability.”

Blood tests for ‘biomarkers’ such as cholesterol and inflammation could predict whether you will be disabled in five years – according to research from the University of East Anglia.

A new study shows how people’s biological health can predict disability and healthcare demand in five years’ time.

But the researchers also found that people on higher-incomes were more likely to seek GP appointments and outpatient treatments for their medical problems – with evidence of pro-rich inequity across all types of health service use.

Dr Apostolos Davillas from UEA’s Norwich Medical School, said: “We know that the poorest people in England miss out on more than a decade of good health compared with the richest.

“We wanted to find out more about the links between people’s social status and their future health – and see whether blood tests could predict future disability and use of health care services.”

The researchers looked at elevated bloodstream ‘biomarkers’ – these are the tell-tale markers linked to different diseases, and they are an objective measure of health.

Biomarkers can tell researchers a lot about what is going on in people’s bodies – even before symptoms of disease begin. Testing for ‘bad’ cholesterol in the bloodstream for example can show a risk of heart disease.

Dr Davillas’ previous research has shown how biomarkers for stress are linked with socioeconomic position and revealed some of the hidden mechanisms connecting social inequality to health.

The researchers studied blood biomarkers from 5,286 participants involved in Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study.

They looked at things like cholesterol, liver and kidney function and inflammation – the body’s response to infections or chronic stress.

They also looked at measures of obesity, grip strength, resting heart rate, blood pressure, and lung function among the participants.

Dr Davillas said: “What we found is that underlying biomarker differences are linked with future disability – and that we could actually predict people’s level of disability in five years’ time, based on the biomarkers in their blood.

“We also found that people’s biological health is linked with future demand on healthcare services such as GP and outpatient consultations, as well as time spent in hospital.

“We tried to investigate the mechanism for why this happens and found that people with impaired biological health may develop disability in five years’ time – resulting in increased health care and social needs.”

But as a by-product of the analysis, the team found that people with higher incomes were more likely to seek the health care they need for their medical problems. This means that there is pro-rich inequity in health care use.

“In a publicly funded health care system, pro-rich inequity in health care use may be because people on lower low-incomes are heavily time-constrained, due to harsher employment and living arrangements, and may be more constrained in seeking the health care they need,” Said Dr Davillas.

The team say their work has important policy implications, particularly for screening programmes and prevention strategies.

Dr Davillas said: “We found that the markers which matter most for disability progression are associated with lung function, grip strength, obesity, anaemia, stress-related hormones and liver function.

“Indicators such as blood pressure and cholesterol, which are the current focus of public health screening programs, are less useful as predictors of disability.

“The NHS England Health Check program mainly offers blood pressure, cholesterol tests and BMI measurements every five years to those aged 40-74.

“But our research shows that a broader set of blood-based biomarkers should be considered for public health screening programmes.

“This is increasingly feasible using dried blood spot sampling – drops of whole blood collected on filter paper from a finger prick – which offers a minimally invasive basis for carrying out a wide range of blood tests at low cost.

“We also focused our study on people who were apparently healthy, so they wouldn’t normally be prioritised by the health care system. We hope our findings could lead to better policies for prevention strategies – which could potentially help the NHS save money.

“Moreover, our results show pro-rich inequity across all types of health service use.

“We hope our findings will help lead to policies to secure more equal health care opportunities across the UK.”

Politicians discuss the ins and outs of health care while trying to win votes, but for some Americans, policymakers do not seem to be listening. University of Kansas researchers have published a study about perspectives of individuals with disabilities on health care policy, and respondents overwhelmingly stated access to health care is vital and they would like policymakers to pay more attention to their needs.

Scholars analyzed data from 35 phone interviews and survey responses from more than 475 individuals with disabilities about health policy. While the respondents largely reflect the political opinions of American society at large, they tended to agree that health care should be viewed as a human right and that feelings of social exclusion and stigma inform what they would like to tell officials who make health policy in the United States.

“We found that people with disabilities are marginalized and stigmatized and that policymakers don’t listen to them,” said Sarah Smith, a doctoral candidate in sociology, graduate research assistant at KU and lead author of the study. “They also felt that access to health insurance was important in order to be able to take part in society and that policymakers did not consider how the policies they make affected their lives.”

The study, published in the Journal of Disability & Policy Studies, was co-written by Smith; Jean Hall, professor of applied behavioral science and director of KU’s Institute for Health & Disability Policy Studies, and Noelle Kurth, senior research assistant at the institute. The interviews and surveys revealed five key themes about health policy perspectives among people with disabilities.

• Access to health insurance and health care is critical for their ability to participate in society
• They felt that politicians did not understand or prioritize the needs and experiences of people with disabilities
• Participants used a variety of arguments why policymakers and society should care about people with disabilities
• They felt access to health care is a human right or moral imperative
• Participants expressed largely positive views regarding the Affordable Care Act.

Respondents nearly uniformly reported how important employment was to their lives in terms of financial security, access to health insurance, not depending on state programs for health coverage and for personal dignity. However, they also faced many barriers to employment, especially those living in states that have not expanded Medicaid who tend to lose eligibility when they are employed.

“Employment is a key component of being part of society and a big part of personal identity,” Smith said. “But it can be very hard to access, and most health insurance is tied to employment, which also makes insurance difficult to access, especially if you’re not employed full time.”

Many study participants also shared that policymakers do not consider the needs of constituents with disabilities.

“I hear politicians on the TV talking about me as if I am the cause of the budget deficit,” one respondent said. “They seem to lump us into a group of people–well, not people: ‘You’re the budget deficit, you’re this, you’re that,’ instead of saying, ‘These are people who need care.’ Maybe the number one thing, then, is an attitude change. You’re not dealing with line items on a budget; you’re dealing with what real people need.”

Previous research has shown political leanings of people with disabilities are representative of those of American society at large, and participants used a variety of arguments for a matter they agreed on: Policymakers should care about individuals with disabilities. The arguments included that no one chooses to be disabled, anyone can become disabled, better health care access will lead to more productive society, all individuals should matter to policymakers as human beings and that politicians should make the health care policy for all like what they want for themselves and their families.

Health care was viewed as a human right, not something that should only be available to certain members of society, the findings showed.

“Policymakers already know that restricting access to health care has outcomes that range from loss of income to loss of life,” one participant said. “True access means that all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay, have access to the same range of services. Like water and an unpolluted environment, health services are essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The study’s participants also expressed largely positive opinions about the Affordable Care Act. Many reported that they still struggled with health care costs but were at least able to get health insurance through the act. Primarily, the law’s health insurance premium subsidies, coverage for preexisting conditions and Medicaid expansion were important to study participants.

Taken as a whole, the results show the connections among disability stigma, health policy and politics. Previous research has shown that people with disabilities face barriers to political participation, similar to those they face with employment and participation in society, and as a result their voices are often underrepresented in health policy discussions, even though their lives are greatly affected by the policies enacted. As key participants in programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the population can provide vital insight into the functioning and outcomes of those programs, the authors wrote. As America’s population ages and the COVID-19 pandemic affects more people’s long-term health, new complications to health care access can be expected, which the authors plan to address in future research.

“This is a population that knows a lot about health policy, because they have to know a lot about navigating insurance and health care systems. Policymakers should listen to them,” Smith said.