Comparison of attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities between medical students and the general...

Intellectual disability (ID) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significant limitations in intellectual and adaptive functioning. Globally, individuals with ID remain among the most marginalized populations, facing major barriers in health care, education, and social inclusion. Societal attitudes toward ID directly influence the quality of care and civic participation. This study aimed to compare attitudes toward individuals with ID between medical students and the general population, exploring cognitive, emotional, and interactional determinants using the ATTID scale.

A cross-sectional study was conducted between July and September 2025 with 230 participants divided into two groups: medical students (n=161) and individuals without medical training (n=69). The internationally validated ATTID questionnaire assessed five dimensions: discomfort, interaction, tenderness-sensitivity, knowledge of abilities and rights, and knowledge of causes. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics (Student's t-test, Cohen's d effect size).

Medical students demonstrated significantly more favorable attitudes in the domains of knowledge of causes (P<0.001; d=-0.536) and recognition of abilities and rights (P=0.0021; d=-0.237). No significant differences were found in discomfort, interaction, or tenderness-sensitivity. Both groups expressed a moderately distant emotional stance and moderate discomfort toward ID.

Medical training appears to enhance etiological and legal knowledge related to ID but does not improve emotional or relational dimensions. This dissociation suggests that medical knowledge alone is insufficient to transform affective or interactional attitudes. These findings align with international observations indicating that direct, structured contact with individuals with ID is more effective than theoretical instruction alone. A professional posture emphasizing emotional neutrality may also limit the expression of sensitivity, despite frequent exposure to human vulnerability.

This study highlights the need to enrich medical education with targeted modules on ID including clinical placements, life testimonies, and ethical and relational approaches. By contributing to a broader reflection on educational and clinical practices, it would pave the way for interventions that promote more inclusive, respectful, and person-centered care. These findings may nurture international initiatives aimed at improving professional attitudes toward individuals with ID.