↓ Skip to main content

Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 867)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
27 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
twitter
227 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
579 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1328 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chloë FitzGerald, Samia Hurst

Abstract

Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race or gender. This review examines the evidence that healthcare professionals display implicit biases towards patients. PubMed, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1st March 2003 and 31st March 2013. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of the identified papers based on precise content and quality criteria. The references of eligible papers were examined to identify further eligible studies. Forty two articles were identified as eligible. Seventeen used an implicit measure (Implicit Association Test in fifteen and subliminal priming in two), to test the biases of healthcare professionals. Twenty five articles employed a between-subjects design, using vignettes to examine the influence of patient characteristics on healthcare professionals' attitudes, diagnoses, and treatment decisions. The second method was included although it does not isolate implicit attitudes because it is recognised by psychologists who specialise in implicit cognition as a way of detecting the possible presence of implicit bias. Twenty seven studies examined racial/ethnic biases; ten other biases were investigated, including gender, age and weight. Thirty five articles found evidence of implicit bias in healthcare professionals; all the studies that investigated correlations found a significant positive relationship between level of implicit bias and lower quality of care. The evidence indicates that healthcare professionals exhibit the same levels of implicit bias as the wider population. The interactions between multiple patient characteristics and between healthcare professional and patient characteristics reveal the complexity of the phenomenon of implicit bias and its influence on clinician-patient interaction. The most convincing studies from our review are those that combine the IAT and a method measuring the quality of treatment in the actual world. Correlational evidence indicates that biases are likely to influence diagnosis and treatment decisions and levels of care in some circumstances and need to be further investigated. Our review also indicates that there may sometimes be a gap between the norm of impartiality and the extent to which it is embraced by healthcare professionals for some of the tested characteristics. Our findings highlight the need for the healthcare profession to address the role of implicit biases in disparities in healthcare. More research in actual care settings and a greater homogeneity in methods employed to test implicit biases in healthcare is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 227 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Unknown 1326 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 209 16%
Student > Master 192 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 140 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 130 10%
Researcher 105 8%
Other 276 21%
Unknown 276 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 297 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 248 19%
Psychology 138 10%
Social Sciences 112 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 2%
Other 166 13%
Unknown 336 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 454. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2021.
All research outputs
#37,815
of 19,541,023 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,181
of 272,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,541,023 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them