Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918860›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Provider implicit and explicit bias in person-centered maternity care: a cross-sectional study with maternity providers in Northern Ghana.

Patience A Afulani, Jaffer Okiring, Raymond A Aborigo, Jerry John Nutor, Irene Kuwolamo, John Baptist K Dorzie, Sierra Semko, Jason A Okonofua, Wendy Berry Mendes

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mixed methods evaluation of the Caring for Providers to Improve Patient Experience intervention.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2024
    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

9 authors.

Patience A AfulaniDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th St, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. Patience.Afulani@ucsf.edu.
Jaffer OkiringInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration, Kampala, Uganda.
Raymond A AborigoNavrongo Health Research Centre, Navrongo, Ghana.
Jerry John NutorDepartment of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Irene KuwolamoNavrongo Health Research Centre, Navrongo, Ghana.
John Baptist K DorzieNavrongo Health Research Centre, Navrongo, Ghana.
Sierra SemkoDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, USA.
Jason A OkonofuaDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, USA.
Wendy Berry MendesDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerson-centered maternity care (PCMC) has become a priority in the global health discourse on quality of care due to the high prevalence of disrespectful and lack of responsive care during facility-based childbirth. Although PCMC is generally sub-optimal, there are significant disparities. On average, women of low socioeconomic status (SES) tend to receive poorer PCMC than women of higher SES. Yet few studies have explored factors underlying these inequities. In this study, we examined provider implicit and explicit biases that could lead to inequitable PCMC based on SES.

methodsData are from a cross-sectional survey with 150 providers recruited from 19 health facilities in the Upper East region of Ghana from October 2020 to January 2021. Explicit SES bias was assessed using situationally-specific vignettes (low SES and high SES characteristics) on providers' perceptions of women's expectations, attitudes, and behaviors. Implicit SES bias was assessed using an Implicit Association Test (IAT) that measures associations between women's SES characteristics and providers' perceptions of women as 'difficult' or 'good'. Analysis included descriptive statistics, mixed-model ANOVA, and bivariate and multivariate linear regression.

resultsThe average explicit bias score was 18.1 out of 28 (SD = 3.60) for the low SES woman vignette and 16.9 out of 28 (SD = 3.15) for the high SES woman vignette (p < 0.001), suggesting stronger negative explicit bias towards the lower SES woman. These biases manifested in higher agreement to statements such as the low SES woman in the vignette is not likely to expect providers to introduce themselves and is not likely to understand explanations. The average IAT score was 0.71 (SD = 0.43), indicating a significant bias in associating positive characteristics with high SES women and negative characteristics with low SES women. Providers with higher education had significantly lower explicit bias scores on the low SES vignette than those with less education. Providers in private facilities had higher IAT scores than those in government hospitals.

conclusionsThe findings provide evidence of both implicit and explicit SES bias among maternity providers. These biases need to be addressed in interventions to achieve equity in PCMC and to improve PCMC for all women.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesAttitude of Health PersonnelBiasCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGhanaHumansParturitionPregnancyExplicit bias; equityImplicit biasMaternity carePerson-centered care

Identifiers

PMID36918860
PMCPMC10015736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read48
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.