ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Implicit Bias in Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.
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.
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
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
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.