Dataset Information

Undoing Racism and Mitigating Bias Among Healthcare Professionals: Lessons Learned During a Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Research indicates that the implicit biases and racist attitudes of healthcare workers are fundamental contributing factors to race-based health inequities. However, few studies and reviews appear to have examined the provision and effects of anti-racist education and training on post-licensure healthcare workers. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to explore what research methods are being used to ascertain the training healthcare workers are receiving post-licensure and to identify the goals and outcomes of this training.

Methods

Using PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases, peer-reviewed articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified and reviewed by the authors from March through October of 2020 in alignment with the renewed national focus on anti-racism and racial justice. Studies or initiatives involving students were excluded as were commentaries on studies and studies not specific to racism or anti-racism.

Results

Eleven articles were identified as meeting stipulated inclusion criteria. Few were outcome studies (n = 3), and many articles did not clearly delineate training methods, content, or outcomes assessed. Identified methods included group discussion, case studies, and online modules. Reported outcomes included increased self-awareness of implicit biases and racism. Only two studies focused specifically on nurses, with the majority of studies centering on physicians (n = 5).

Conclusions

A considerable knowledge gap exists regarding effective methods, tools, and outcomes to use for undoing racism and mitigating bias in healthcare professionals. Nothing less than a seismic paradigm shift is called for, one in which an anti-racist perspective informs all healthcare education, research, and practice.

SUBMITTER: Ricks TN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8415190 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Undoing Racism and Mitigating Bias Among Healthcare Professionals: Lessons Learned During a Systematic Review.

Ricks Tiffany N TN Abbyad Christine C Polinard Elizabeth E

Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities 20210903 5

<h4>Background</h4>Research indicates that the implicit biases and racist attitudes of healthcare workers are fundamental contributing factors to race-based health inequities. However, few studies and reviews appear to have examined the provision and effects of anti-racist education and training on post-licensure healthcare workers. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to explore what research methods are being used to ascertain the training healthcare workers are receiving post- ...[more]

PMID: 34480317

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn this study, we sought to assess healthcare professionals' acceptance of and satisfaction with a shared decision making (SDM) educational workshop, its impact on their intention to use SDM, and their perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation of SDM in clinical settings in Iran.MethodsWe conducted an observational quantitative study that involved measurements before, during, and immediately after the educational intervention at stake. We invited healthcare professionals affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, East Azerbaijan, Iran, to attend a half-day workshop on SDM in December 2016. Decisions about prenatal screening and knee replacement surgery was used as clinical vignettes. We provided a patient decision aid on prenatal screening that complied with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards and used illustrate videos. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a questionnaire to assess their familiarity with SDM, a questionnaire based on theoretical domains framework to assess their intention to implement SDM, a questionnaire about their perceived facilitators and barriers of implementing SDM in their clinical practice, continuous professional development reaction questionnaire, and workshop evaluation. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and with multiple linear regression.ResultsAmong the 60 healthcare professionals invited, 41 participated (68%). Twenty-three were female (57%), 18 were specialized in family and emergency medicine, or community and preventive medicine (43%), nine were surgeons (22%), and 14 (35%) were other types of specialists. Participants' mean age was 37.51 ± 8.64 years with 8.09 ± 7.8 years of clinical experience. Prior to the workshop, their familiarity with SDM was 3.10 ± 2.82 out of 9. After the workshop, their belief that practicing SDM would be beneficial and useful (beliefs about consequences) (beta = 0.67, 95% CI 0.27, 1.06) and beliefs about capability of using SDM (beta = 0.32, 95% CI -0.08, 0.72) had the strongest influence on their intention of practicing SDM. Participants perceived the main facilitator and barrier to perform SDM were training and high patient load, respectively.ConclusionsParticipants thought the workshop was a good way to learn SDM and that they would be able to use what they had learned in their clinical practice. Future studies need to study the level of intention of participants in longer term and evaluate the impact of cultural differences on practicing SDM and its implementation in both western and non-western countries.

Project description:Simulation-based research has grown substantially over the past two decades; however, relatively few published simulation studies are multicenter in nature. Multicenter research confers many distinct advantages over single-center studies, including larger sample sizes for more generalizable findings, sharing resources amongst collaborative sites, and promoting networking. Well-executed multicenter studies are more likely to improve provider performance and/or have a positive impact on patient outcomes. In this manuscript, we offer a step-by-step guide to conducting multicenter, simulation-based research based upon our collective experience with the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research and Education (INSPIRE). Like multicenter clinical research, simulation-based multicenter research can be divided into four distinct phases. Each phase has specific differences when applied to simulation research: (1) Planning phase, to define the research question, systematically review the literature, identify outcome measures, and conduct pilot studies to ensure feasibility and estimate power; (2) Project Development phase, when the primary investigator identifies collaborators, develops the protocol and research operations manual, prepares grant applications, obtains ethical approval and executes subsite contracts, registers the study in a clinical trial registry, forms a manuscript oversight committee, and conducts feasibility testing and data validation at each site; (3) Study Execution phase, involving recruitment and enrollment of subjects, clear communication and decision-making, quality assurance measures and data abstraction, validation, and analysis; and (4) Dissemination phase, where the research team shares results via conference presentations, publications, traditional media, social media, and implements strategies for translating results to practice. With this manuscript, we provide a guide to conducting quantitative multicenter research with a focus on simulation-specific issues.

Dataset Information

Undoing Racism and Mitigating Bias Among Healthcare Professionals: Lessons Learned During a Systematic Review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Undoing Racism and Mitigating Bias Among Healthcare Professionals: Lessons Learned During a Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets