Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37340395›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review.

John Thompson, Helena Bujalka, Stephen McKeever, Adrienne Lipscomb, Sonya Moore, Nicole Hill, Sharon Kinney, Kwang Meng Cham, Joanne Martin, Patrick Bowers and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Cognitive Errors and Debiasing.Journal of education & teaching in emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

John ThompsonDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Level 6, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Victoria, 3010, Australia. john.thompson@unimelb.edu.au.
Helena BujalkaDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Level 6, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Stephen McKeeverDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Level 6, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Adrienne LipscombDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Level 6, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Sonya MooreDepartment of Physiotherapy, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Nicole HillDepartment of Social Work, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sharon KinneyDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Level 6, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Kwang Meng ChamDepartment of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Joanne MartinDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Level 6, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Patrick BowersDepartment of Audiology and Speech Pathology, School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Marie GerdtzDepartment of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Level 6, Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Victoria, 3010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCognitive and implicit biases negatively impact clinicians' decision-making capacity and can have devastating consequences for safe, effective, and equitable healthcare provision. Internationally, health care clinicians play a critical role in identifying and overcoming these biases. To be workforce ready, it is important that educators proactively prepare all pre-registration healthcare students for real world practice. However, it is unknown how and to what extent health professional educators incorporate bias training into curricula. To address this gap, this scoping review aims to explore what approaches to teaching cognitive and implicit bias, for entry to practice students, have been studied, and what are the evidence gaps that remain.

methodsThis scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Databases were searched in May 2022 and included CINAHL, Cochrane, JBI, Medline, ERIC, Embase, and PsycINFO. The Population, Concept and Context framework was used to guide keyword and index terms used for search criteria and data extraction by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative studies published in English exploring pedagogical approaches and/or educational techniques, strategies, teaching tools to reduce the influence of bias in health clinicians' decision making were sought to be included in this review. Results are presented numerically and thematically in a table accompanied by a narrative summary.

resultsOf the 732 articles identified, 13 met the aim of this study. Most publications originated from the United States (n=9). Educational practice in medicine accounted for most studies (n=8), followed by nursing and midwifery (n=2). A guiding philosophy or conceptual framework for content development was not indicated in most papers. Educational content was mainly provided via face-to-face (lecture/tutorial) delivery (n=10). Reflection was the most common strategy used for assessment of learning (n=6). Cognitive biases were mainly taught in a single session (n=5); implicit biases were taught via a mix of single (n=4) and multiple sessions (n=4).

conclusionsA range of pedagogical strategies were employed; most commonly, these were face-to-face, class-based activities such as lectures and tutorials. Assessments of student learning were primarily based on tests and personal reflection. There was limited use of real-world settings to educate students about or build skills in biases and their mitigation. There may be a valuable opportunity in exploring approaches to building these skills in the real-world settings that will be the workplaces of our future healthcare workers.

Indexed as

Bias, ImplicitMidwiferyCognitionDecision MakingFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPregnancyAssessmentClinical decision-makingCognitive biasHealthcare educationImplicit biasTertiary education

Identifiers

PMID37340395
PMCPMC10280953

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.