Molly Carnes

Purpose: Recognition that cultural stereotypes can unintentionally perpetuate inequities throughout academic medicine has led to calls for “implicit bias training” without strong evidence to support these recommendations and some evidence of potential harm. The authors sought to determine the effectiveness of a single 3-hour workshop in helping department of medicine faculty overcome implicit stereotype-based bias and in improving the climate in the working environment. Method: A multisite cluster randomized controlled study (October 2017 to April 2021) with clustering at the level of divisions within departments and participant-level analysis of survey responses involved 8,657 faculty in 204 divisions in 19 departments of medicine: 4,424 in the intervention group (1,526 attended a workshop) and 4,233 in the control group. Online surveys at baseline (3,764/8,657 = 43.48% response rate) and 3-months after the workshop (2,962/7,715 = 38.39% response rate) assessed bias awareness, bias-reducing intentional behavioral change, and perceptions of division climate. Results: At 3 months, faculty in the intervention vs control divisions showed greater increases in awareness of personal bias vulnerability (b = 0.190 [95% CI, 0.031 to 0.349], P = .02); bias reduction self-efficacy (b = 0.097 [95% CI, 0.010 to 0.184], P = .03); and taking action to reduce bias (b = 0.113 [95% CI, 0.007 to 0.219], P = .04). The workshop had no effect on climate or burnout, but slightly increased perceptions of respectful division meetings (b = 0.072 [95% CI, 0.0003 to 0.143], P = .049). Conclusions: Results of this study should give confidence to those designing prodiversity interventions for faculty in academic medical centers that a single workshop which promotes awareness of stereotype-based implicit bias, explains and labels common bias concepts, and provides evidence-based strategies for participants to practice appears to have no harms and may have significant benefits in empowering faculty to break the bias habit.

Background: US regulatory framework for advanced heart failure therapies (AHFT), ventricular assist devices, and heart transplants, delegate eligibility decisions to multidisciplinary groups at the center level. The subjective nature of decision‐making is at risk for racial, ethnic, and gender bias. We sought to determine how group dynamics impact allocation decision‐making by patient gender, racial, and ethnic group. Methods and Results: We performed a mixed‐methods study among 4 AHFT centers. For ≈ 1 month, AHFT meetings were audio recorded. Meeting transcripts were evaluated for group function scores using de Groot Critically Reflective Diagnoses protocol (metrics: challenging groupthink, critical opinion sharing, openness to mistakes, asking/giving feedback, and experimentation; scoring: 1 to 4 [high to low quality]). The relationship between summed group function scores and AHFT allocation was assessed via hierarchical logistic regression with patients nested within meetings nested within centers, and interaction effects of group function score with gender and race, adjusting for patient age and comorbidities. Among 87 patients (24% women, 66% White race) evaluated for AHFT, 57% of women, 38% of men, 44% of White race, and 40% of patients of color were allocated to AHFT. The interaction between group function score and allocation by patient gender was statistically significant ( P =0.035); as group function scores improved, the probability of AHFT allocation increased for women and decreased for men, a pattern that was similar irrespective of racial and ethnic groups. Conclusions: Women evaluated for AHFT were more likely to receive AHFT when group decision‐making processes were of higher quality. Further investigation is needed to promote routine high‐quality group decision‐making and reduce known disparities in AHFT allocation.

Orthopaedic surgery is the least diverse of all medical specialties, by both sex and race. Diversity among orthopaedic trainees is the lowest in medicine, and growth in percentage representation is the lowest of all surgical subspecialties. Women comprise only 6% of orthopaedic surgeons and 16% of orthopaedic surgery trainees. This extreme lack of diversity in orthopaedics limits creative problem-solving and the potential of our profession. Women in orthopaedics encounter sexual harassment, overt discrimination, and implicit bias, which create barriers to training, career satisfaction, and success. Women are underrepresented in leadership positions, perpetuating the lack of diversity through poor visibility to potential candidates, which impedes recruitment. Correction will require a concerted effort, as acknowledged by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons leadership who included a goal and plan to increase diversity in the 2019 to 2023 Strategic Plan. Recommended initiatives include support for pipeline programs that increase diversity of the candidate pool; sexual harassment and implicit bias acknowledgement, education, and corrective action; and the active sponsorship of qualified, capable women by organizational leaders. To follow, women will lend insight from their diverse viewpoints to research questions, practice problems, and clinical conundrums of our specialty, augmenting the profession and improving patient outcomes.

Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.

Introduction: To study the effectiveness of any educational intervention for faculty requires first that they attend the training. Using attendance as a measure of faculty engagement, this study examined factors associated with the percentage of faculty in divisions of departments of medicine who attended a workshop as part of a multisite study. Methods: Between October 2018 and March 2020, 1675 of 4767 faculty in 120 divisions of 14 departments of medicine attended a 3-hour in-person workshop as part of the Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine (BRIM) initiative. This paper describes the workshop development and study design. The number of faculty per division ranged from 5 to 296. Attendance rates varied from 2.7% to 90.1%. Taking a quality improvement approach, the study team brainstormed factors potentially related to variations in workshop attendance, constructed several division- and institution-level variables, and assessed the significance of factors on workshop attendance with hierarchical linear models. Results: The following were positively associated with workshop attendance rate: the division head attended the workshop, the BRIM principal investigator gave Medical Grand Rounds, and the percentage of local workshop presenters who completed training. Workshop attendance rates fell when departments identified more than five on-site study leaders. Conclusions: Factors associated with higher workshop attendance may have increased the perceived status and value of attending the workshop, leading faculty to choose the workshop over other competing demands. For future investigators studying educational interventions that require participation of faculty in clinical departments at multiple sites, this work offers several valuable lessons.

Background Workplace discrimination negatively affects physicians of color personally and professionally. Although the occurrence of discrimination from patients has been visible in social media, popular press, and personal essays, scant research exists on patients as a source of discrimination directed at physicians of color. Objective To explore practicing general internists’ experiences observing or interacting with patients exhibiting discriminatory behavior directed at physicians of color. Design A qualitative study with in-depth, semi-structured, one-on-one telephone interviews conducted and recorded between May and September 2019. Participants A purposive sample of 24 general internists practicing at 12 academic health centers in the USA: 14 self-identified as White and 10 as a physician of color, which included Asian, Black, Native American, and self-identified other race. Approach Four coders analyzed the transcribed and verified interview text; thematic analysis was used to inductively identify cohesive themes and subthemes. Key Results Analyses revealed four major themes: (1) assumption that a legitimate doctor is White, male, and able-bodied; (2) legacy of the Black experience; (3) working through the struggle of discrimination; and (4) ethical dilemma of providing care to discriminatory patients. In addition to discrimination from patients based on a physician’s race or ethnicity, participants described experiencing or observing discrimination based on a physician’s gender and disability status. Participants generally expressed a need for greater support from colleagues and more guidance from institutional policies. Conclusions General internists practicing in academic settings reported observing or experiencing discrimination from patients based on the physician’s race, ethnicity, gender (or their intersection), and disability status and the ethical dilemma of providing care to such patients. These results contribute to growing evidence of the need for institutions to better support an increasingly diverse physician workforce with policies and specific guidance to help physicians respond to discrimination from patients while still providing quality care.

Introduction. Fair Play is an avatar-based role-playing video game in which Jamal Davis, a Black graduate student at a research university, navigates implicit forms of racial bias to reach the win-state of earning his PhD and becoming a professor. Fair Play was designed to educate players on the existence of racial bias in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields in an experiential way and to encourage perspective-taking. Research has found that taking the perspective of another can induce empathy, which improves the empathizer’s attitudes towards individuals and groups. Paired with a facilitated workshop, Fair Play was also designed to teach bias concepts to increase participants’ bias literacy. Intervention. Research on workshops to reduce gender bias suggests that it increased awareness of personal bias, the motivation and self-efficacy to practice bias-reducing strategies, and a more welcoming department climate and the hiring of more women faculty three years after the intervention. Capitalizing on these findings, a 3-hour workshop was developed to reduce race-based bias against Black/African Americans in STEMM using Fair Play. Conclusions. The facilitation of the workshops and Fair Play requires particular competencies due to its topic (racial bias) and player’s skepticism about the reality of the bias incidents. Our data suggest that participants who identify as a person of color are more likely to believe that bias exists compared to White players, which can lead to a discussion about how the incidents in the game were designed and scripted. The facilitator also needs to be versed in a number of intentional design choices, such as Jamal not having voiceover and his success. Finally, this paper describes the Facilitator Game, which was developed as a complement to the game and allows a facilitator to jump to bias incidents quickly while debriefing and discussing the game to further participant learning.

A compelling case exists that increasing the number of Black physicians trained and practicing in the United States is one effective intervention to promote health equity and reduce the persistent health disparities that have become glaringly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the U.S. physician workforce has relatively few Black physicians. Blacks comprise approximately 13% of the U.S. population but only 5% of practicing physicians. In this Invited Commentary, the authors caution that the COVID-19 pandemic may erode the meager progress that has been made in increasing the number of Black physicians. This loss of Black physicians may happen because Black patients are overrepresented among cases of COVID-19, Black physicians care for relatively more Black patients often in settings with less access to SARS-CoV-2 testing and personal protective equipment, and Black physicians have more comorbid chronic conditions that increase their own susceptibility to mortality from COVID-19. All organizations in which physicians train and practice must redouble their efforts to recruit, train, and retain Black physicians. If nothing else, the COVID-19 pandemic must make academic health centers and health care systems recognize Black physicians as the precious resource they are and protect and reward them accordingly.