Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37731787›Full record

ArticleHealth equity2023

Challenges and Opportunities for Clinician Implicit Bias Training: Insights from Perinatal Care Stakeholders.

Sarah B Garrett, Linda Jones, Alexandra Montague, Haleemat Fa-Yusuf, Julie Harris-Taylor, Breezy Powell, Erica Chan, Stephen Zamarripa, Sarah Hooper, Brittany D Chambers Butcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health equity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Enhancing Obstetric Healthcare Providers' Knowledge of Black Maternal Mental Health: A Feasibility Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. 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

10 authors.

Sarah B GarrettPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3238-5692
Linda JonesCalifornia Preterm Birth Initiative, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Alexandra MontagueUCSF-UC Law Consortium on Law, Science & Health Policy, University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, California, USA.
Haleemat Fa-YusufIndependent Researcher and Community Advisor, San Francisco, California, USA.
Julie Harris-TaylorCalifornia Preterm Birth Initiative, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Breezy PowellCalifornia Preterm Birth Initiative, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Erica ChanUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Stephen ZamarripaPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Sarah HooperUCSF-UC Law Consortium on Law, Science & Health Policy, University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, California, USA.
Brittany D Chambers ButcherDepartment of Human Ecology, University of California, Davis, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In an attempt to address health inequities, many U.S. states have considered or enacted legislation requiring antibias or implicit bias training (IBT) for health care providers. California's "Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act" requires that hospitals and alternative birthing centers provide IBT to perinatal clinicians with the goal of improving clinical outcomes for Black women and birthing people. However, there is as yet insufficient evidence to identify what IBT approaches, if any, achieve this goal. Engaging the experiences and insights of IBT stakeholders is a foundational step in informing nascent IBT policy, curricula, and implementation. Methods: We conducted a multimethod community-based participatory research study with key stakeholders of California's IBT policy to identify key challenges and recommendations for effective clinician IBT. We used focus groups, in-depth interviews, combined inductive/deductive thematic analysis, and multiple techniques to promote rigor and validity. Participants were San Francisco Bay Area-based individuals who identified as Black or African American women with a recent hospital birth ( Results: We identified numerous actionable challenges and recommendations regarding aspects of (1) state law; (2) IBT content and format; (3) health care facility IBT implementation; (4) health care facility environment; and (5) provider commitment and behaviors. Patient and clinician insights overlapped substantially. Many respondents felt IBT would improve outcomes only in combination with other antiracism interventions. Health Equity Implications: These stakeholder insights offer policy-makers, health system leaders, and curriculum developers crucial guidance for the future development and implementation of clinician antibias interventions.

Indexed as

community-based participatory researchhealth equity interventionimplicit bias trainingmaternal healthqualitative researchstakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID37731787
PMCPMC10507933

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.