ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025
Self-reported impacts one year after a brief health equity/implicit bias course for academic clinicians.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore whether there were lasting effects of brief implicit bias education on clinicians' teaching and practice one year after taking the course and whether implicit and explicit bias was associated with self-reported impact of the course. Method: This was a mixed-method study. We followed up with a sample of 119 academic clinicians who completed the baseline study December 2019. Recruitment for the current study was conducted between December 2020 and March 2021. Participants responded online to survey questions about whether the course had an impact on their teaching and practice. We categorized qualitative responses to these questions using Prochaska & DiClemente's Stages of Change Model of Behavior Change. Implicit and explicit race and gender bias data were collected at baseline. Results: Response rate was 47.1% (N=56). Participants were 64.3% female, 66.1% White, 67.9% were Medical Doctors (MD) and 82.1% work in an academic healthcare system. Overall, we found slight implicit pro-White bias (mean= 0.27, SD 0.45, p=<0.001) and male-career gender bias (mean= 0.33, SD 0.31, p=<0.001). Across all four questions 42 unique participants (75.0%) responded to at least one question reporting, " Conclusions: This study found that the majority of study participants reported lasting effects of the course on their teaching and/or practice. Brief implicit bias education can impact clinicians' teaching and practice. .
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.