Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42512146›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026

Implicit Bias in Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.

Kelly Chacon-Acevedo, Ana María Castillo, John Alexander Castro-Muñoz, Yonatan Ferney Rojas, Andrea Bermudez-Rodriguez, Ana María Rojas-Gómez

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Kelly Chacon-AcevedoCenter for Evidence Evaluation, Research for Health Decisions (CEIDS), Translational Research Group, Keralty Global Institute for Health Care Excellence (IGEC-K), Bogotá 110111, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-4843-7036
Ana María CastilloKeralty Global Institute for Health Care Excellence (IGEC-K), Bogotá 110111, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-2798-1577
John Alexander Castro-MuñozDepartment of Psychology, Social Sciences and Education Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá 110131, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-4881-6071
Yonatan Ferney RojasDepartment of Psychology, Social Sciences and Education Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá 110131, Colombia.ORCID 0009-0005-6160-4291
Andrea Bermudez-RodriguezModels and Programs Unit, Keralty Global Institute for Health Care Excellence (IGEC-K), Bogotá 110111, Colombia.ORCID 0009-0007-0391-5811
Ana María Rojas-GómezCenter for Evidence Evaluation, Research for Health Decisions (CEIDS), Translational Research Group, Keralty Global Institute for Health Care Excellence (IGEC-K), Bogotá 110111, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-9779-338X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implicit bias, automatic attitudes or stereotypes outside conscious awareness, may influence clinicians' communication, diagnosis, and treatment decisions, contributing to inequities in care. We conducted a scoping review to map measurement strategies used to assess implicit bias among health professionals and students in healthcare and training settings. Using Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and PRISMA-ScR, we searched PubMed, Embase, BVS, Google Scholar, and institutional repositories for studies to November 2025; two reviewers independently screened and charted data (protocol was developed a priori but submitted internal in organization, and then uploaded in OSF. Of 1864 records, 93 studies from 28 countries were included. We identified 57 bias domains, most often race/ethnicity, weight, and sexual orientation. Across studies, 42 unique instruments were reported; the Implicit Association Test was most common, while psychometric validation and administration details were frequently limited, constraining comparability and interpretation. Evidence gap mapping showed concentration in academic and hospital settings, with fewer studies in primary care or community contexts and limited attention to age, disability, and intersectionality-related biases. The evidence base is growing but fragmented; future work should prioritize standardized administration and reporting, stronger validation, and tools that better capture automatic responding across diverse identities and care settings to support education and equity-oriented interventions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBias, ImplicitHealth PersonnelHumansevidence gap maphealth equityhealth professionalsImplicit Association Testimplicit biasmeasurementPRISMA-ScRscoping review

Identifiers

PMID42512146
PMCPMC13410340

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.