Prejudice among health care workers toward injecting drug users with hepatitis C: Does greater contact lead to less prejudice?
Open accessAbstract
The current research measured explicit (self-reported) and implicit (or unconscious) attitudes of health care workers and their drug injecting clients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) toward each other, and the association of these attitudes with contact. Sixty health care workers and 120 of their clients with HCV acquired from injecting drug use were administered attitude measures to determine whether greater contact with HCV positive clients would result in more favourable attitudes on the part of health care workers toward these clients, and also on the part of these clients towards their health care workers. Findings suggest that increased contact with clients with HCV is associated with more favourable explicit attitudes and more negative implicit attitudes among health care workers toward injecting drug users. Health care workers who had greater contact with HCV positive clients also had HCV positive clients who held more favourable explicit attitudes toward health care workers, but contact was uncorrelated with implicit attitudes of clients toward health care workers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Brener 2007 found health care workers had positive explicit attitudes and negative implicit attitudes towards HCV positive IDUs.
“HCW had positive explicit attitudes and negative implicit attitudes towards HCV positive IDUs.”
From Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [49]
Brener 2007 found contact (as estimated by HCW) predicted explicit (positive) and implicit attitudes (negative) towards IDU beyond the effect of conservatism.
“Contact (as estimated by HCW) predicted explicit (positive) and implicit attitudes (negative) towards IDU beyond the effect of conservatism.”
From Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [49]
Four studies included participants who were not trained physicians or nurses and failed to report separate results for these categories of participants.
“Four studies included participants who were not trained physicians or nurses and failed to report separate results for these categories of participants [42, 44, 49, 50].”
From Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [49]
Two British studies examine bias against brain-injured patients who are perceived as having contributed to their injury, and two Australian studies looked at bias against intravenous drug users.
“two British studies examine bias against brain-injured patients who are perceived as having contributed to their injury [58, 59], and two Australian studies looked at bias against intravenous drug users [48, 49]”
From Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [49]
In one study, increased contact with patients with Hepatitis C virus was associated with more favourable explicit attitudes, yet more negative implicit attitudes towards intravenous drug users.
“In one study, increased contact with patients with Hepatitis C virus was associated with more favourable explicit attitudes, yet more negative implicit attitudes towards intravenous drug users [49].”
From Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [49]
Cites
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006) · Journal of personality and social psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 · Cited by 8,964 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Allport (1954) originally asserted that contact between groups under certain conditions reduces prejudice, and a large body of research in social psychology has supported this conclusion ( Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 ).”
ResultPettigrew, T. F. (1998) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 · Cited by 6,001 · see citing works
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The revised Wilson Conservatism Scale was chosen not only because it is widely used, brief, and easily administered, but also because it has been shown to assess social as well as political conservatism (Henningham, 1996; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003 ).”
MethodWilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.1.101 · Cited by 2,112 · see citing works
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105 · Cited by 1,463 · see citing works
The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition.
Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16 · Cited by 1,108 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review
FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8 · Cited by 2,398 · see citing works
van Boekel, L. C., Brouwers, E. P. M., van Weeghel, J., & Garretsen, H. F. L. (2013) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.018 · Cited by 1,810 · see citing works
Unconscious (Implicit) Bias and Health Disparities: Where Do We Go from Here?
Blair, I. V., Steiner, J. F., & Havranek, E. P. (2011) · The Permanente Journal · doi:10.7812/tpp/11.979 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
Meyerson, B. E., Russell, D. M., Kichler, M., Atkin, T., Fox, G., & Coles, H. B. (2021) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103112 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brener, L., von Hippel, W., & Kippax, S.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Brener, Loren
- ORCID
- Brener, Loren
- Venue
- International Journal of Drug Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 381-387
- ISSN
- 0955-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140448731
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 11.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- handle.unsw.edu.au
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- Locations
- International Journal of Drug Policy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council
- National Health and Medical Research Council
- National Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Keywords
- hepatitis C, people who inject drugs, healthcare workers, prejudice, explicit attitudes, implicit attitudes, stigma, attitudes toward people with HIV
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Hepatitis C, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse-Patient Relations, Physician-Patient Relations, Prejudice, Public Opinion, Self Concept, Stereotyping, Substance Abuse, Intravenous
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
