ArticleGlobalization and health2017
Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test.
Article in Globalization and health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The burden of illness in Lennox-Gastaut syndrome: a systematic literature review.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Pooled it
- A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effect of Antiretroviral Therapy on Neurocognitive Outcomes in Adults Living with HIV-1 in Low-and Middle-Income Countries.Neuropsychology review · 2022Pooled it
- The weekend effect: does hospital mortality differ by day of the week? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2018Pooled it
- The methodological quality of clinical trials of physical therapy for low back pain varies between countries with different income levels. A meta-epidemiological study.Brazilian journal of physical therapyPooled it
- Linguistic bias and the hidden costs of science lost in translation.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Dissemination and Implementation Theories, Models, or Frameworks Utilized in International Aging Research: A Citation Analysis.Global implementation research and applications · 2026Review
- Ordering matters in shared authorship: a response to Decius and Schilbach.Scientometrics · 2025Article
- Global Authorship Representation in Otolaryngology Clinical Trials.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Risk of Editorial Bias: A Case Study of Factors Contributing to Review Time in a Leading Journal in Dentistry.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Guidance needed for using artificial intelligence to screen journal submissions for misconduct.Research ethics · 2025Article
- The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- Valuing peer review at Disease Models & Mechanisms.Disease models & mechanisms · 2024Article
- Editorial: Research priorities concerning formal and informal learning in low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Increasing diversity of functional genetics studies to advance biological discovery and human health.American journal of human genetics · 2023Article
- Prejudice, Interests, Jealousy: Inappropriate Peer Reviewers May Be Exacerbating Inequality in Academic Publication in Health Research.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Bridging the gap: promoting equity and diversity in global oncology research within Sub-Saharan Africa.BMJ oncology · 2023Article
- Multisystem inflammatory syndrome drug treatment in countries with different income profiles: a scoping review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Reciprocal innovation: A new approach to equitable and mutually beneficial global health partnerships.Global public health · 2023Article
- PreprintMatch: A tool for preprint to publication detection shows global inequities in scientific publication.PloS one · 2023Article
- Bias Amplification in Gender, Gender Identity, and Geographical Affiliation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith an increasing array of innovations and research emerging from low-income countries there is a growing recognition that even high-income countries could learn from these contexts. It is well known that the source of a product influences perception of that product, but little research has examined whether this applies also in evidence-based medicine and decision-making. In order to examine likely barriers to learning from low-income countries, this study uses established methods in cognitive psychology to explore whether healthcare professionals and researchers implicitly associate good research with rich countries more so than with poor countries.
methodsComputer-based Implicit Association Test (IAT) distributed to healthcare professionals and researchers. Stimuli representing Rich Countries were chosen from OECD members in the top ten (>$36,000 per capita) World Bank rankings and Poor Countries were chosen from the bottom thirty (<$1000 per capita) countries by GDP per capita, in both cases giving attention to regional representation. Stimuli representing Research were descriptors of the motivation (objective/biased), value (useful/worthless), clarity (precise/vague), process (transparent/dishonest), and trustworthiness (credible/unreliable) of research. IAT results are presented as a Cohen's d statistic. Quantile regression was used to assess the contribution of covariates (e.g. age, sex, country of origin) to different values of IAT responses that correspond to different levels of implicit bias. Poisson regression was used to model dichotomized responses to the explicit bias item.
resultsThree hundred twenty one tests were completed in a four-week period between March and April 2015. The mean Implicit Association Test result (a standardized mean relative latency between congruent and non-congruent categories) for the sample was 0.57 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.61) indicating that on average our sample exhibited moderately strong implicit associations between Rich Countries and Good Research. People over 40 years of age were less likely to exhibit pro-poor implicit associations, and being a peer reviewer contributes to a more pro-poor association.
conclusionsThe majority of our participants associate Good Research with Rich Countries, compared to Poor Countries. Implicit associations such as these might disfavor research from poor countries in research evaluation, evidence-based medicine and diffusion of innovations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.