Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
Pilot investigation into the influence of racial implicit bias on physician clinical reasoning.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gonzalez Cristina M, Deno Maria L, Ark Tavinder K, Helft Miriam, Connor Denise M, Kalet Adina L, Burgess Diana J, Samuel Malika T, Fisher Marla R, Durning Steven J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the impact of racial implicit bias and clinical reasoning remains conflicting. Our inability to characterize the relationship between racial implicit bias and clinical reasoning (CR) precludes development of comprehensive interventions seeking to address the impact of racial implicit bias on clinical encounters. To address this gap, we conducted a simulation-based investigation with clinical presentations with known health disparities, cognitive stressors common to clinical environments, and Black and White standardized patients (SPs).
METHODS: We recruited 75 early-career generalist physicians from five academic medical centers in New York, NY, USA. Physicians engaged in a three-station simulation. The first was for level-setting, familiarizing physicians with the online platform. The second was a diagnostic dilemma - an atypical presentation of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The third tested treatment decision-making in acute pain. Immediately afterward, physicians completed the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT) and Race Medical Cooperativeness (RMC) IAT measuring affective and cognitive implicit biases, respectively. Two investigators assessed CR accuracy by applying a scoring rubric to physicians' post-encounter notes.
RESULTS: Statistical analyses revealed no significant correlations between physicians' Race-IAT scores and CR by SP race. However, for ACS, a moderate correlation was suggested between physicians' RMC-IAT scores and CR accuracy when seeing Black (R=0.36, CI -0.04 to 0.6), but not White, SPs (R=0.1, CI -0.44 to 0.24).
CONCLUSIONS: This study expands our understanding of the complex impact of racial implicit bias on clinical encounters. Future, larger studies should explore affective and cognitive implicit biases' effects on CR across varied clinical scenarios and contexts with diverse SPs.
METHODS: We recruited 75 early-career generalist physicians from five academic medical centers in New York, NY, USA. Physicians engaged in a three-station simulation. The first was for level-setting, familiarizing physicians with the online platform. The second was a diagnostic dilemma - an atypical presentation of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The third tested treatment decision-making in acute pain. Immediately afterward, physicians completed the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT) and Race Medical Cooperativeness (RMC) IAT measuring affective and cognitive implicit biases, respectively. Two investigators assessed CR accuracy by applying a scoring rubric to physicians' post-encounter notes.
RESULTS: Statistical analyses revealed no significant correlations between physicians' Race-IAT scores and CR by SP race. However, for ACS, a moderate correlation was suggested between physicians' RMC-IAT scores and CR accuracy when seeing Black (R=0.36, CI -0.04 to 0.6), but not White, SPs (R=0.1, CI -0.44 to 0.24).
CONCLUSIONS: This study expands our understanding of the complex impact of racial implicit bias on clinical encounters. Future, larger studies should explore affective and cognitive implicit biases' effects on CR across varied clinical scenarios and contexts with diverse SPs.