Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34812541›Full record

ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2022

Electronic Health Records as Biased Tools or Tools Against Bias: A Conceptual Model.

Michael D Rozier, Kavita K Patel, Dori A Cross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Equity in cancer care: mixed methods clinical utility analysis of the Nursing Equity Assessment Tool (NEAT) to identify disadvantage in newly diagnosed cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. An HIT-Supported Care Coordination Framework for Reducing Structural Racism and Discrimination for Patients With ADRD.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael D RozierCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University.
Kavita K PatelBrookings Institution - USC Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy.
Dori A CrossSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy Points Electronic health records (EHRs) are subject to the implicit bias of their designers, which risks perpetuating and amplifying that bias over time and across users. If left unchecked, the bias in the design of EHRs and the subsequent bias in EHR information will lead to disparities in clinical, organizational, and policy outcomes. Electronic health records can instead be designed to challenge the implicit bias of their users, but that is unlikely to happen unless incentivized through innovative policy. CONTEXT: Health care delivery is now inextricably linked to the use of electronic health records (EHRs), which exert considerable influence over providers, patients, and organizations.

methodsThis article offers a conceptual model showing how the design and subsequent use of EHRs can be subject to bias and can either encode and perpetuate systemic racism or be used to challenge it. Using structuration theory, the model demonstrates how a social structure, like an EHR, creates a cyclical relationship between the environment and people, either advancing or undermining important social values.

findingsThe model illustrates how the implicit bias of individuals, both developers and end-user clinical providers, influence the platform and its associated information. Biased information can then lead to inequitable outcomes in clinical care, organizational decisions, and public policy. The biased information also influences subsequent users, amplifying their own implicit biases and potentially compounding the level of bias in the information itself. The conceptual model is used to explain how this concern is fundamentally a matter of quality. Relying on the Donabedian model, it explains how elements of the EHR design (structure), use (process), and the ends for which it is used (outcome) can first be used to evaluate where bias may become embedded in the system itself, but then also identify opportunities to resist and actively challenge bias.

conclusionsOur conceptual model may be able to redefine and improve the value of technology to health by modifying EHRs to support more equitable data that can be used for better patient care and public policy. For EHRs to do this, further work is needed to develop measures that assess bias in structure, process, and outcome, as well as policies to persuade vendors and health systems to prioritize systemic equity as a core goal of EHRs.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsModels, TheoreticalBiasDelivery of Health CareHumans

Identifiers

PMID34812541
PMCPMC8932623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.