ReviewJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2023
Transmission of negative biases through social commentary included in neonatal intensive care unit progress notes.
Review in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Biased Language in the Care of Seriously Ill Children: A Pilot Study.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2026Article
- The Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia 1-Year Mortality.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Article
- Demographic and clinical predictors and inter-center variability of tube feeding in preterm NICU patients.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine how the perception of families elicited after reading progress note social commentary differs by patient race. STUDY
designWe retrospectively performed content analysis of social commentary in physician progress notes for neonatal intensive care unit patients hospitalized from 2018-2019. Neonatologists blinded to patient race rated how commentary impacted their perception of the patient's family on a 5-point Likert scale. Frequency of negative ratings was compared across reported race using chi-squared tests.
resultsWe reviewed charts of 460 neonates. In total, 225 (49%) contained social commentary beyond parents' names. Twelve neonatologists rated how commentaries impacted their perception of the patient's family; 79%, 18%, and 3% were rated neutrally, negatively, and positively, respectively. Frequency of negative ratings was significantly greater among American Indian/Alaska Native than other patients (35% vs. 22%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsPhysician documentation of social commentary in patient notes may reflect and perpetuate implicit biases that contribute to race-based healthcare disparities.
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.