Cited by 162Cultural Competency in Health CareOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

The Interaction of Patient Race, Provider Bias, and Clinical Ambiguity on Pain Management Decisions

Open access
Hirsh, Adam T., Hollingshead, Nicole A., Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie, Kroenke, Kurt·2015·The Journal of Pain

Abstract

Unlabelled Although racial disparities in pain care are widely reported, much remains to be known about the role of provider and contextual factors. We used computer-simulated patients to examine the influence of patient race, provider racial bias, and clinical ambiguity on pain decisions. One hundred twenty-nine medical residents/fellows made assessment (pain intensity) and treatment (opioid and nonopioid analgesics) decisions for 12 virtual patients with acute pain. Race (black/white) and clinical ambiguity (high/low) were manipulated across vignettes. Participants completed the Implicit Association Test and feeling thermometers, which assess implicit and explicit racial biases, respectively. Individual- and group-level analyses indicated that race and ambiguity had an interactive effect on providers' decisions, such that decisions varied as a function of ambiguity for white but not for black patients. Individual differences across providers were observed for the effect of race and ambiguity on decisions; however, providers' implicit and explicit biases did not account for this variability. These data highlight the complexity of racial disparities and suggest that differences in care between white and black patients are, in part, attributable to the nature (ie, ambiguity) of the clinical scenario. The current study suggests that interventions to reduce disparities should differentially target patient, provider, and contextual factors. Perspective This study examined the unique and collective influence of patient race, provider racial bias, and clinical ambiguity on providers' pain management decisions. These results could inform the development of interventions aimed at reducing disparities and improving pain care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.03.003

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Several studies published after 2013 indicated a null relationship between levels of implicit bias and clinical decision-making.

    “Several studies post 2013 (thus after our cut-off date) have also indicated a null relationship between levels of implicit bias and clinical decision-making [52–54].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hirsh, A. T., Hollingshead, N. A., Ashburn-Nardo, L., & Kroenke, K.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Hirsh, Adam T.
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
558-568
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2093661016
Cited by
162
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2
FWCI
32.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • PMC
Funders
  • American Pain Society
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01MD008931)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
patient race, implicit racial bias, opioid prescribing, acute pain, medical residents and fellows
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analgesics, Opioid, Attitude of Health Personnel, Black or African American, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Surveys and Questionnaires, White People, Healthcare Disparities, Pain Management, Racism

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