↓ Skip to main content

Ethnic bias and clinical decision-making among New Zealand medical students: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Ethnic bias and clinical decision-making among New Zealand medical students: an observational study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1120-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricci Harris, Donna Cormack, James Stanley, Elana Curtis, Rhys Jones, Cameron Lacey

Abstract

Health professional racial/ethnic bias may impact on clinical decision-making and contribute to subsequent ethnic health inequities. However, limited research has been undertaken among medical students. This paper presents findings from the Bias and Decision-Making in Medicine (BDMM) study, which sought to examine ethnic bias (Māori (indigenous peoples) compared with New Zealand European) among medical students and associations with clinical decision-making. All final year New Zealand (NZ) medical students in 2014 and 2015 (n = 888) were invited to participate in a cross-sectional online study. Key components included: two chronic disease vignettes (cardiovascular disease (CVD) and depression) with randomized patient ethnicity (Māori or NZ European) and questions on patient management; implicit bias measures (an ethnicity preference Implicit Association Test (IAT) and an ethnicity and compliant patient IAT); and, explicit ethnic bias questions. Associations between ethnic bias and clinical decision-making responses to vignettes were tested using linear regression. Three hundred and two students participated (34% response rate). Implicit and explicit ethnic bias favoring NZ Europeans was apparent among medical students. In the CVD vignette, no significant differences in clinical decision-making by patient ethnicity were observed. There were also no differential associations by patient ethnicity between any measures of ethnic bias (implicit or explicit) and patient management responses in the CVD vignette. In the depression vignette, some differences in the ranking of recommended treatment options were observed by patient ethnicity and explicit preference for NZ Europeans was associated with increased reporting that NZ European patients would benefit from treatment but not Māori (slope difference 0.34, 95% CI 0.08, 0.60; p = 0.011), although this was the only significant finding in these analyses. NZ medical students demonstrated ethnic bias, although overall this was not associated with clinical decision-making. This study both adds to the small body of literature internationally on racial/ethnic bias among medical students and provides relevant and important information for medical education on indigenous health and ethnic health inequities in New Zealand.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 17%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Researcher 8 5%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 52 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 21%
Psychology 19 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 55 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,764,821
of 25,660,026 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#679
of 4,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,502
of 452,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#14
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,660,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 452,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.