Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37228737›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

A novel approach for assessing bias during team-based clinical decision-making.

Natalie Pool, Megan Hebdon, Esther de Groot, Ryan Yee, Kathryn Herrera-Theut, Erika Yee, Larry A Allen, Ayesha Hasan, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Elizabeth Calhoun and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Implicit Bias in Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

13 authors.

Natalie PoolSchool of Nursing, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, United States.
Megan HebdonSchool of Nursing, University of Texas-Austin, Austin, TX, United States.
Esther de GrootDepartment of General Practice, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Ryan YeeDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine Research Department, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Kathryn Herrera-TheutCollege of Medicine, Department of Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Erika YeeCollege of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Larry A AllenDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, United States.
Ayesha HasanDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
JoAnn LindenfeldDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Elizabeth CalhounDepartment of Population Health, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, United States.
Molly CarnesDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Nancy K SweitzerDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Khadijah BreathettDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.

Funding

Seeking Objectivity in Allocation of Advanced Heart Failure (SOCIAL HF) Therapies TrialR56HL159216 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI BREATHETT, KHADIJAH · 2021 to 2021
$906k
Addressing Individual Provider Bias and Group Decision-Making in Selection of Advanced Heart Failure Therapies in Racial/Ethnic MinoritiesK01HL142848 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI BREATHETT, KHADIJAH · 2018 to 2021
$858k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL142848NHLBI NIH HHS L30 HL148881NHLBI NIH HHS R56 HL159216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many clinical processes include multidisciplinary group decision-making, yet few methods exist to evaluate the presence of implicit bias during this collective process. Implicit bias negatively impacts the equitable delivery of evidence-based interventions and ultimately patient outcomes. Since implicit bias can be difficult to assess, novel approaches are required to detect and analyze this elusive phenomenon. In this paper, we describe how the de Groot Critically Reflective Diagnoses Protocol (DCRDP) can be used as a data analysis tool to evaluate group dynamics as an essential foundation for exploring how interactions can bias collective clinical decision-making. The DCRDP includes 6 distinct criteria: challenging groupthink, critical opinion sharing, research utilization, openness to mistakes, asking and giving feedback, and experimentation. Based on the strength and frequency of codes in the form of exemplar quotes, each criterion was given a numerical score of 1-4 with 1 representing teams that are interactive, reflective, higher functioning, and more equitable. When applied as a coding scheme to transcripts of recorded decision-making meetings, the DCRDP was revealed as a practical tool for examining group decision-making bias. It can be adapted to a variety of clinical, educational, and other professional settings as an impetus for recognizing the presence of team-based bias, engaging in reflexivity, informing the design and testing of implementation strategies, and monitoring long-term outcomes to promote more equitable decision-making processes in healthcare.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDelivery of Health CareDecision MakingHumansbiasdecision-makinggroup decisionmethodologymixed-methods analysesqualitative descriptive analysis

Identifiers

PMID37228737
PMCPMC10203455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.