Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia PA 19104, United States.
Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine and PolicyLab, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia PA 19104, United States.
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:219-229. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.05.009. Epub 2017 May 4.
Disparities in the care and outcomes of US racial/ethnic minorities are well documented. Research suggests that provider bias plays a role in these disparities. The implicit association test enables measurement of implicit bias via tests of automatic associations between concepts. Hundreds of studies have examined implicit bias in various settings, but relatively few have been conducted in healthcare. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the current knowledge on the role of implicit bias in healthcare disparities. A comprehensive literature search of several databases between May 2015 and September 2016 identified 37 qualifying studies. Of these, 31 found evidence of pro-White or light-skin/anti-Black, Hispanic, American Indian or dark-skin bias among a variety of HCPs across multiple levels of training and disciplines. Fourteen studies examined the association between implicit bias and healthcare outcomes using clinical vignettes or simulated patients. Eight found no statistically significant association between implicit bias and patient care while six studies found that higher implicit bias was associated with disparities in treatment recommendations, expectations of therapeutic bonds, pain management, and empathy. All seven studies that examined the impact of implicit provider bias on real-world patient-provider interaction found that providers with stronger implicit bias demonstrated poorer patient-provider communication. Two studies examined the effect of implicit bias on real-world clinical outcomes. One found an association and the other did not. Two studies tested interventions aimed at reducing bias, but only one found a post-intervention reduction in implicit bias. This review reveals a need for more research exploring implicit bias in real-world patient care, potential modifiers and confounders of the effect of implicit bias on care, and strategies aimed at reducing implicit bias and improving patient-provider communication. Future studies have the opportunity to build on this current body of research, and in doing so will enable us to achieve equity in healthcare and outcomes.
美国的种族/少数民族在医疗保健方面存在差异,这是有据可查的。研究表明,提供者的偏见在这些差异中起到了一定的作用。内隐联想测验通过测试概念之间的自动联想,来测量内隐偏见。数以百计的研究已经在各种环境中研究了内隐偏见,但在医疗保健领域相对较少。本系统综述的目的是综合目前关于内隐偏见在医疗保健差异中的作用的知识。2015 年 5 月至 2016 年 9 月,通过对多个数据库进行全面文献检索,确定了 37 项符合条件的研究。其中,31 项研究在各种医疗保健提供者中发现了针对白种人或浅色皮肤/反黑人、西班牙裔、美国印第安人或深色皮肤的偏见证据,这些医疗保健提供者具有不同的培训水平和学科背景。有 14 项研究使用临床病例或模拟患者来检验内隐偏见与医疗保健结果之间的关系。八项研究发现内隐偏见与患者护理之间没有统计学上的显著关联,而六项研究发现,较高的内隐偏见与治疗建议、治疗关系预期、疼痛管理和同理心方面的差异有关。在检查内隐提供者偏见对实际患者-提供者互动影响的七项研究中,所有研究都发现,具有更强内隐偏见的提供者表现出较差的医患沟通。两项研究考察了内隐偏见对真实临床结果的影响。一项研究发现了关联,另一项则没有。两项研究测试了旨在减少偏见的干预措施,但只有一项研究发现干预后内隐偏见有所减少。本综述揭示了需要更多研究来探索实际患者护理中的内隐偏见、内隐偏见对护理影响的潜在修饰符和混杂因素,以及旨在减少内隐偏见和改善医患沟通的策略。未来的研究有机会在当前这一研究领域的基础上继续深入,从而使我们能够实现医疗保健和结果的公平。