Dataset Information

Role of implicit bias in pediatric cancer clinical trials and enrollment recommendations among pediatric oncology providers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Provider implicit bias can negatively affect clinician-patient communication. In the current study, the authors measured implicit bias training among pediatric oncology providers and exposure to implicit association tests (IATs). They then assessed associations between IATs for race and socioeconomic status (SES) and recommendations for clinical trial enrollment.

Methods

A prospective multisite study was performed to measure implicit bias among oncology providers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and affiliate clinics. An IAT was used to assess bias in the domains of race and SES. Case vignettes were used to determine an association between bias and provider recommendation for trial enrollment. Data were analyzed using Student t tests or Wilcoxon tests for comparisons and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests were used for association.

Results

Of the 105 total participants, 95 (90%) had not taken an IAT and 97 (92%) had no prior implicit bias training. A large effect was found for (bias toward) high SES (Cohen d, 1.93) and European American race (Cohen d, 0.96). The majority of participants (90%) had a vignette score of 3 or 4, indicating recommendation for trial enrollment for most or all vignettes. IAT and vignette scores did not significantly differ between providers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital or affiliate clinics. No association was found between IAT and vignette scores for race (P = .58) or SES (P = .82).

Conclusions

The authors noted a paucity of prior exposure to implicit bias self-assessments and training. Although these providers demonstrated preferences for high SES and European American race, this did not appear to affect recommendations for clinical trial enrollment as assessed by vignettes.

SUBMITTER: Graetz DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7790838 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeHealth providers' implicit racial bias negatively affects communication and patient reactions to many medical interactions. However, its effects on racially discordant oncology interactions are largely unknown. Thus, we examined whether oncologist implicit racial bias has similar effects in oncology interactions. We further investigated whether oncologist implicit bias negatively affects patients' perceptions of recommended treatments (i.e., degree of confidence, expected difficulty). We predicted oncologist implicit bias would negatively affect communication, patient reactions to interactions, and, indirectly, patient perceptions of recommended treatments.MethodsParticipants were 18 non-black medical oncologists and 112 black patients. Oncologists completed an implicit racial bias measure several weeks before video-recorded treatment discussions with new patients. Observers rated oncologist communication and recorded interaction length of time and amount of time oncologists and patients spoke. Following interactions, patients answered questions about oncologists' patient-centeredness and difficulty remembering contents of the interaction, distress, trust, and treatment perceptions.ResultsAs predicted, oncologists higher in implicit racial bias had shorter interactions, and patients and observers rated these oncologists' communication as less patient-centered and supportive. Higher implicit bias also was associated with more patient difficulty remembering contents of the interaction. In addition, oncologist implicit bias indirectly predicted less patient confidence in recommended treatments, and greater perceived difficulty completing them, through its impact on oncologists' communication (as rated by both patients and observers).ConclusionOncologist implicit racial bias is negatively associated with oncologist communication, patients' reactions to racially discordant oncology interactions, and patient perceptions of recommended treatments. These perceptions could subsequently directly affect patient-treatment decisions. Thus, implicit racial bias is a likely source of racial treatment disparities and must be addressed in oncology training and practice.

Project description:BackgroundClinical significance in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) can be determined using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which should inform the delta value used to determine sample size. The primary objective was to assess clinical significance in the pediatric oncology randomized controlled trial (RCT) treatment literature by evaluating: (1) the relationship between the treatment effect and the delta value as reported in the sample size calculation, and (2) the concordance between statistical and clinical significance. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reporting of methodological attributes related to clinical significance.MethodsRCTs of pediatric cancer treatments, where a sample size calculation with a delta value was reported or could be calculated, were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group Specialized Register through CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2016.ResultsRCTs (77 overall; 11 and 66), representing 95 (13 and 82) randomized questions were included for non-inferiority and superiority RCTs (herein, respectively). The minority (22.1% overall; 76.9 and 13.4%) of randomized questions reported conclusions based on clinical significance, and only 4.2% (15.4 and 2.4%) explicitly based the delta value on the MCID. Over half (67.4% overall; 92.3 and 63.4%) reported a confidence interval or standard error for the primary outcome experimental and control values and 12.6% (46.2 and 7.3%) reported the treatment effect, respectively. Of the 47 randomized questions in superiority trials that reported statistically non-significant findings, 25.5% were possibly clinically significant. Of the 24 randomized questions in superiority trials that were statistically significant, only 8.3% were definitely clinically significant.ConclusionsA minority of RCTs in the pediatric oncology literature reported methodological attributes related to clinical significance and a notable portion of statistically insignificant studies were possibly clinically significance.

Project description:Problem and purposeHealthcare provider implicit bias influences the learning environment and patient care. Bias awareness is one of the key elements to be included in implicit bias education. Research on education enhancing bias awareness is limited. Bias awareness can motivate behavior change. The objective was to evaluate whether exposure to a brief online course, Implicit Bias in the Clinical and Learning Environment, increased bias awareness.Materials and methodsThe course included the history of racism in medicine, social determinants of health, implicit bias in healthcare, and strategies to reduce the impact of implicit bias in clinical care and teaching. A sample of U.S. academic family, internal, and emergency medicine providers were recruited into the study from August to December 2019. Measures of provider implicit and explicit bias, personal and practice characteristics, and pre-post-bias awareness measures were collected.ResultsOf 111 participants, 78 (70%) were female, 81 (73%) were White, and 63 (57%) were MDs. Providers held moderate implicit pro-White bias on the Race IAT (Cohen's d = 0.68) and strong implicit stereotypes associating males rather than females with 'career' on the Gender-Career IAT (Cohen's d = 1.15). Overall, providers held no explicit race bias (Cohen's d = 0.05). Providers reported moderate explicit male-career (Cohen's d = 0.68) and strong female-family stereotype (Cohen's d = 0.83). A statistically significant increase in bias awareness was found after exposure to the course (p = 0.03). Provider implicit and explicit biases and personal and practice characteristics were not associated with an increase in bias awareness.ConclusionsImplicit bias education is effective to increase providers' bias awareness regardless of strength of their implicit and explicit biases and personal and practice characteristics. Increasing bias awareness is one step of many toward creating a positive learning environment and a system of more equitable healthcare.