ReviewBMC medical education2025
Implicit bias assessment by career stage in medical education training: a narrative review.
Review in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implicit Bias in Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- The graduate school playbook: comparisons to preparing for a professional football career.Advances in physiology education · 2025Article
- Knowledge, Confidence, and Comfort Regarding Sickle Cell Disease Among Medical Students: A Pilot Study in Two Universities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Self-reported impacts one year after a brief health equity/implicit bias course for academic clinicians.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2025Article
- Leveraging Provocative Design Methods to Address Implicit Bias in Clinical Interactions through Technology.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- The Relationship Between the Survey of Well-being of Young Children and Speech-language Delay Diagnosis.Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person based on individual characteristics. Early evaluation of implicit bias in medical training can prevent long-term adverse health outcomes related to racial bias. However, to our knowledge, no present studies examine the sequential assessment of implicit bias through the different stages of medical training. The objective of this narrative review is to examine the breadth of existing publications that assess implicit bias at the current levels of medical training, pre-medical, graduate, and postgraduate. Protocol for this study was drafted using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Reviews (SANRA). Keyword literature search on peer-reviewed databases Google Scholar, PubMed, Ebsco, ScienceDirect, and MedEd Portal from January 1, 2017, to March 1, 2022, was used to identify applicable research articles. The online database search identified 1,512 articles. Full screening resulted in 75 papers meeting the inclusion criteria. Over 50% of extracted papers (74%) were published between 2019 and 2021 and investigated implicit bias at the post-graduate level (43%), followed by the graduate level (34%), and pre-medical level (9.4%). Fourteen percent were classified as mixed. Studies at the medical and medical graduate level identified an implicit preference towards white, male, non-LGBTQIA+, thin, patients. Study findings highlight notable gaps within the sequential assessment of implicit bias, specifically at the pre-medical training level. Longitudinal epidemiological research is needed to examine the long-term effect of implicit biases on existing 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.