Molly Carnes

Physicians and Implicit Bias: How Doctors May Unwittingly Perpetuate Health Care Disparities

ABSTRACTAlthough the medical profession strives for equal treatment of all patients, disparities in health care are prevalent. Cultural stereotypes may not be consciously endorsed, but their mere existence influences how information about an individual is processed and leads to unintended biases in decision-making, so called “implicit bias”. All of society is susceptible to these biases, including physicians. Research suggests that implicit bias may contribute to health care disparities by shaping physician behavior and producing differences in medical treatment along the lines of race, ethnicity, gender or other characteristics. We review the origins of implicit bias, cite research documenting the existence of implicit bias among physicians, and describe studies that demonstrate implicit bias in clinical decision-making. We then present the bias-reducing strategies of consciously taking patients’ perspectives and intentionally focusing on individual patients’ information apart from their social group. We conclude that the contribution of implicit bias to health care disparities could decrease if all physicians acknowledged their susceptibility to it, and deliberately practiced perspective-taking and individuation when providing patient care. We further conclude that increasing the number of African American/Black physicians could reduce the impact of implicit bias on health care disparities because they exhibit significantly less implicit race bias.

The Long-term Health Outcomes of Childhood Abuse: An Overview and a Call to Action

While the association between abuse in childhood and adverse adult health outcomes is well established, this link is infrequently acknowledged in the general medical literature. This paper has 2 purposes: (1) to provide a broad overview of the research on the long-term effects of child abuse on mental and physical health including some of the potential pathways, and (2) to call for collaborative action among clinicians, psychosocial and biomedical researchers, social service agencies, criminal justice systems, insurance companies, and public policy makers to take a comprehensive approach to both preventing and dealing with the sequelae of childhood abuse.

Inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials: have we made progress?

BACKGROUND The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 requires that NIH-funded clinical trials include women and minorities as participants; other federal agencies have adopted similar guidelines. The objective of this study is to determine the current level of compliance with these guidelines for the inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in federally funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the current level of compliance with that from 2004, which was reported previously. METHODS RCTs published in nine prominent medical journals in 2009 were identified by PubMed search. Studies where individuals were not the unit of analysis, those begun before 1994, and those not receiving federal funding were excluded. PubMed search located 512 published articles. After exclusion of ineligible articles, 86 (17%) remained for analysis. RESULTS Thirty studies were sex specific. The median enrollment of women in the 56 studies that included both men and women was 37%. Seventy-five percent of the studies did not report any outcomes by sex, including 9 studies reporting <20% women enrolled. Among all 86 studies, 21% did not report sample sizes by racial and ethnic groups, and 64% did not provide any analysis by racial or ethnic groups. Only 3 studies indicated that the generalizability of their results may be limited by lack of diversity among those studied. There were no statistically significant changes in inclusion or reporting of sex or race/ethnicity when compared with 2004. CONCLUSIONS Ensuring enhanced inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity entails the efforts of NIH, journal editors, and the researchers themselves.

The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

Purpose Despite sincere commitment to egalitarian, meritocratic principles, subtle gender bias persists, constraining women’s opportunities for academic advancement. The authors implemented a pair-matched, single-blind, cluster randomized, controlled study of a gender-bias-habit-changing intervention at a large public university. Method Participants were faculty in 92 departments or divisions at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Between September 2010 and March 2012, experimental departments were offered a gender-bias-habit-changing intervention as a 2.5-hour workshop. Surveys measured gender bias awareness; motivation, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations to reduce bias; and gender equity action. A timed word categorization task measured implicit gender/leadership bias. Faculty completed a work–life survey before and after all experimental departments received the intervention. Control departments were offered workshops after data were collected. Results Linear mixed-effects models showed significantly greater changes post intervention for faculty in experimental versus control departments on several outcome measures, including self-efficacy to engage in gender-equity-promoting behaviors (P = .013). When ≥ 25% of a department’s faculty attended the workshop (26 of 46 departments), significant increases in self-reported action to promote gender equity occurred at three months (P = .007). Post intervention, faculty in experimental departments expressed greater perceptions of fit (P = .024), valuing of their research (P = .019), and comfort in raising personal and professional conflicts (P = .025). Conclusions An intervention that facilitates intentional behavioral change can help faculty break the gender bias habit and change department climate in ways that should support the career advancement of women in academic medicine, science, and engineering.

Results of a gender-climate and work-environment survey at a midwestern academic health center.

Purpose To determine how facultys perceptions of medical school gender climate differ by gender, track, rank, and departmental affiliation. Method In 1997, a 115-item questionnaire was sent to all University of Wisconsin Medical School faculty to assess their perceptions of mentoring, networking, professional environment, obstacles to a successful academic career, and reasons for considering leaving academic medicine. Using Fishers exact two-tailed test, the authors assessed gender differences both overall and by track, rank, and departmental cluster. Results Of the 836 faculty on tenure, clinician-educator, and clinical tracks, 507 (61%) responded. Although equal proportions of men and women had mentors, 24% of the women (compared with 6% of men; p < .001) felt that informal networking excluded faculty based on gender. Womens and mens perceptions differed significantly (p < .001) on 12 of 16 professional environment items (p < .05 on two of these items) and on five of six items regarding obstacles to academic success. While similar percentages of women and men indicated having seriously considered leaving academic medicine, their reasons differed: women cited work-family conflicts (51%), while men cited uncompetitive salaries (59%). These gender differences generally persisted across tracks, ranks, and departmental clusters. The greatest gender differences occurred among clinician-educators, associate professors, and primary care faculty. Conclusions Women faculty perceived that gender climate created specific, serious obstacles to their professional development. Many of those obstacles (e.g., inconvenient meeting times and lack of child care) are remediable. These data suggest that medical schools can improve the climate and retain and promote women by more inclusive networking, attention to meeting times and child care, and improved professional interactions between men and women faculty.

Body Piercing: Medical Concerns with Cutting-Edge Fashion

OBJECTIVE: To review the current information on medical complications, psychological implications, and legislative issues related to body piercing, a largely unregulated industry in the United States.METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE search of English language articles from 1966 until May 1998 using the search terms “body piercing” and “ear piercing.” Bibliographies of these references were reviewed for additional citations. We also conducted an Internet search for “body piercing” on the World Wide Web.MAIN RESULTS: In this manuscript, we review the available body piercing literature. We conclude that body piercing is an increasingly common practice in the United States, that this practice carries substantial risk of morbidity, and that most body piercing in the United States is being performed by unlicensed, unregulated individuals. Primary care physicians are seeing growing numbers of patients with body pierces. Practitioners must be able to recognize, treat, and counsel patients on body piercing complications and be alert to associated psychological conditions in patients who undergo body piercing.

Interventions That Affect Gender Bias in Hiring: A Systematic Review

Purpose To systematically review experimental evidence for interventions mitigating gender bias in employment. Unconscious endorsement of gender stereotypes can undermine academic medicines commitment to gender equity. Method The authors performed electronic and hand searches for randomized controlled studies since 1973 of interventions that affect gender differences in evaluation of job applicants. Twenty-seven studies met all inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into three categories: application information, applicant features, and rating conditions. Results The studies identified gender bias as the difference in ratings or perceptions of men and women with identical qualifications. Studies reaffirmed negative bias against women being evaluated for positions traditionally or predominantly held by men (male sex-typed jobs). The assessments of male and female raters rarely differed. Interventions that provided raters with clear evidence of job-relevant competencies were effective. However, clearly competent women were rated lower than equivalent men for male sex-typed jobs unless evidence of communal qualities was also provided. A commitment to the value of credentials before review of applicants and womens presence at above 25% of the applicant pool eliminated bias against women. Two studies found unconscious resistance to “antibias” training, which could be overcome with distraction or an intervening task. Explicit employment equity policies and an attractive appearance benefited men more than women, whereas repeated employment gaps were more detrimental to men. Masculine-scented perfume favored the hiring of both sexes. Negative bias occurred against women who expressed anger or who were perceived as self-promoting. Conclusions High-level evidence exists for strategies to mitigate gender bias in hiring.

Gender Differences Among Physician–scientists in Self-assessed Abilities to Perform Clinical Research

Purpose. To examine gender differences in physicians’ self-assessed abilities to apply knowledge and skills in six core competencies for success as a clinical investigator. Method. A written questionnaire containing 35 learning objectives was administered to physicians involved in a clinical-research training program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Between 2000 and 2002, 57 postgraduate trainees (49% women) completed the questionnaire; 40 of the 57 completed the questionnaire a second time after a four-day intensive workshop in clinical research. The main outcome measure was gender differences in ratings for each question answered. Results. Before the workshop, women physicians rated their abilities lower than men rated their own abilities on 22 of 35 learning objectives and women were significantly lower in rating their ability to spend sufficient time developing and advancing their own area of scientific knowledge and research. After the workshop, women rated themselves lower than men rated themselves on 33 of 35 objectives, with significant differences in seven. Women did not rate themselves significantly higher than men rated themselves on any of the 35 objectives assessed. Conclusion. Women physicians consistently rated their abilities to perform or apply knowledge and skills related to clinical research lower than men rated themselves, and a traditional training venue exacerbated these gender differences. This previously unexplored gender difference in self-perceived competency may indicate an additional barrier women face in academic career development and suggests that educational programs incorporate learning activities that address gender differences when training physicians for careers in clinical research.

Comparison of neuroendocrine and behavioral effects of ipsapirone, a 5-HT1A agonist, in three stress paradigms: immobilization, forced swim and conditioned fear.

Ipsapirone is an anxiolytic drug and a serotonin1A (5-HT1A) agonist. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of low doses of ipsapirone on the hormonal and behavioral response to three stress procedures: immobilization, forced swim and conditioned emotional response (CER). We examined the effect of ipsapirone (0.1, 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg) on plasma renin concentration (PRC), adrenal corticotropic hormone (ACTH), corticosterone, prolactin and defecation in rats exposed to immobilization, forced swim or CER stress. All three stressors significantly elevated all the hormone levels (P less than 0.01). Immobilization-induced elevations of PRC, and corticosterone were inhibited by the highest doses of ipsapirone (0.5 and 1 mg/kg, i.p.). However, ipsapirone did not modify the immobilization-induced elevations of plasma ACTH, prolactin or defecation. Ipsapirone was relatively ineffective at reducing the endocrine responses to forced swim. Ipsapirone reduced some, but not all of the hormonal responses to CER stress. CER-induced elevations of corticosterone and prolactin were not inhibited by ipsapirone. However, the ACTH response to CER was significantly (P less than 0.01) inhibited by all doses of ipsapirone and the highest dose of ipsapirone attenuated the renin response. In contrast with the hormonal responses, ipsapirone inhibited all of the behavioral responses to CER stress. Ipsapirone inhibited CER-induced freezing behavior and defecation, while dose-dependently reversing the suppressive effect of CER on exploring, grooming and rearing behaviors. In conclusion, there is a dissociation between the influence of ipsapirone on the endocrine and behavioral responses to CER stress. Ipsapirone also has differential effects on the neuroendocrine response to the three stressors studied. Ipsapirone was most effective in attenuating the hormonal responses to CER, followed by immobilization and swim stress. Of the hormones studied, the stimulation of renin secretion after exposure to the three stressors was most sensitive to ipsapirone, while corticosterone and prolactin were the least sensitive to ipsapirone.

Does Stereotype Threat Affect Women in Academic Medicine

Multiple complex factors contribute to the slow pace of womens advancement into leadership positions in academic medicine. In this article, the authors propose that stereotype threat—under which individuals who are members of a group characterized by negative stereotypes in a particular domain perform below their actual abilities in that domain when group membership is emphasized—may play an important role in the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in academic medicine. Research to objectively assess the impact of stereotype threat for women in academic medicine is feasible and necessary to confirm this hypothesis. Still, a number of conditions present in the academic medicine community today have been shown to trigger stereotype threat in other settings, and stereotype threat fits with existing research on gender in academic medicine. In the meantime, academic health centers should implement relatively simple measures supported by experimental evidence from other settings to reduce the risk of stereotype threat, including (1) introducing the concept of stereotype threat to the academic medicine community, (2) engaging all stakeholders, male and female, to promote identity safety by enacting and making faculty aware of policies to monitor potential instances of discrimination, and training faculty to provide performance feedback that is free of gender bias, (3) counteracting the effects of sex segregation at academic health centers by increasing exposure to successful female leaders, (4) reducing gender stereotype priming by avoiding stereotypically male criteria for promotion, grants, and awards, and (5) building leadership efficacy among female physicians and scientists.