Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36038641›Full record

ArticlePediatric research2023

A mixed methods study of perceptions of bias among neonatal intensive care unit staff.

Yarden S Fraiman, Christine C Cheston, Diana Morales, Kristen T Leeman, Anne R Hansen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Implicit Bias in Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Staff perspectives on racial inequities in the neonatal intensive care unit: the REJOICE study.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Equity, inclusion and cultural humility: contemporizing the neonatal intensive care unit family-centered care model.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yarden S FraimanDepartment of Neonatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. yfraiman@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Christine C ChestonDepartment of Pediatrics, Boston Medical Center/Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Diana MoralesDivision of Newborn Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Kristen T LeemanDivision of Newborn Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Anne R HansenDivision of Newborn Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Harvard University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBoston Children's Hospital · USBoston University · US

Funding

Training in Child Health Services Research and Implementation ScienceT32HS000063 · AHRQ · CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON · PI GARABEDIAN, LAURA FADEN, WALSH, KATHLEEN ELIZABETH · 1994 to 2024
$7.6M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS000063
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInequity in neonatology may be potentiated within neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) by the effects of bias. Addressing bias can lead to improved, more equitable care. Understanding perceptions of bias can inform targeted interventions to reduce the impact of bias. We conducted a mixed methods study to characterize the perceptions of bias among NICU staff.

methodsSurveys were distributed to all staff (N = 245) in a single academic Level IV NICU. Respondents rated the impact of bias on their own and others' behaviors on 5-point Likert scales and answered one open-ended question. Kruskal-Wallis test (KWT) and Levene's test were used for quantitative analysis and thematic analysis was used for qualitative analysis.

resultsWe received 178 responses. More respondents agreed that bias had a greater impact on others' vs. their own behaviors (KWT p < 0.05). Respondents agreed that behaviors were influenced more by implicit than explicit biases (KWT p < 0.05). Qualitative analysis resulted in nine unique themes.

conclusionsStaff perceive a high impact of bias across different domains with increased perceived impact of implicit vs. explicit bias. Staff perceive a greater impact of others' biases vs. their own. Mixed methods studies can help identify unique, unit-responsive approaches to reduce bias. IMPACT: Healthcare staff have awareness of bias and its impact on their behaviors with patients, families, and staff. Healthcare staff believe that implicit bias impacts their behaviors more than explicit bias, and that they have less bias than others. Healthcare staff have ideas for strategies and approaches to mitigate the impact of bias. Mixed method studies are effective ways of understanding environment-specific perceptions of bias, and contextual assets and barriers when creating interventions to reduce bias and improve equity. Generating interventions to reduce the impact of bias in healthcare requires a context-specific understanding of perceptions of bias among staff.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, NeonatalNeonatologyAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansInfant, NewbornSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36038641
PMCPMC9971322
OpenAlexW4293440443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.