Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41275457›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2025

Implementation of a Healthcare Implicit Bias Training across Three Oncology Care Settings.

Dana Rosenberg, Teletia Taylor, Hannah Arem, Kimberly Davis, Carla Williams, Julie E Bauman, Christopher J King, Mandi L Pratt-Chapman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Dana RosenbergGW Cancer Center, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1828-3737
Teletia TaylorHoward University Cancer Center, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8466-256X
Hannah AremHealthcare Delivery Research, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5734-0810
Kimberly DavisGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2374-8719
Carla WilliamsHoward University Cancer Center, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2790-139X
Julie E BaumanGW Cancer Center, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1398-6636
Christopher J KingGeorgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3069-7841
Mandi L Pratt-ChapmanGW Cancer Center, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, United States. mandi@gwu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9303-7659

Funding

CDC HHS U01DP006639
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe evaluation outcomes, including reach, satisfaction with training, and strategies to increase uptake of implicit bias training across three cancer centers in Washington, DC. From October 25, 2022, to March 29, 2023, oncology clinicians and staff were asked to complete an implicit bias training and post-training survey. Strategies used to increase training reach included identifying and preparing champions, identifying facilitators and barriers, promoting adaptation, and mandating completion. We quantitatively assessed satisfaction with training and self-reported learning outcomes and qualitatively explored impact of the training and how implementation strategies affected uptake. We reviewed open-text responses for feedback and insights from learners. At the suggestion of our champions, we pivoted from a five-hour training to a one-hour training to adapt to clinical team availability. The most successful strategies for increasing training uptake included reducing training length and personalized follow-up from institutional champions. One hundred eight of the 163 (66%) invited learners completed the training. Over 94% of learners agreed or strongly agreed that they met the training's three learning objectives: describing implicit bias, providing examples of implicit bias in healthcare settings, and reflecting on one's own biases. Learners' open-ended responses described how training reaffirmed viewpoints for some learners while others became more aware of their biases. Implementing an implicit bias training across multiple care settings was successful in reaching our goal of 100 learners; however, reach varied by setting due to competing priorities and less champion influence at one institution.

Indexed as

Implementation strategiesImplicit biasOncology

Identifiers

PMID41275457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.