Cited by 21Health disparities and outcomesPublic Health and Social InequalitiesCultural Competency in Health Care

Health professional’s implicit bias of adult patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a Scoping review protocol

Open access
Job, Claire, Adenipekun, Bami, Cleves, Anne, Samuriwo, Ray·2022·BMJ Open

Abstract

Introduction: Despite efforts to improve population health and reduce health inequalities, higher morbidity and mortality rates for people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) persist. People with lower SES are said to receive worse care and have worse outcomes compared with those with higher SES, in part due to bias and prejudice. Implicit biases adversely affect professional patient relationships and influence healthcare-related decision-making. A better understanding of the relationship between SES and healthcare-related decision-making is therefore essential to address socioeconomic inequalities in health. Aim: To scope the reported impact of health professionals bias about SES on clinical decision-making and its effect on the care of adults with lower SES in wider literature. Methods: This scoping review will use Joanna Briggs Institute methods and will report its findings in line with Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols and Scoping Reviews guidelines. Data analysis, interpretation and reporting will be underpinned by the PAGER ( P atterns, A dvances, G aps, E vidence for Practice and R esearch recommendations) framework and input from a patient and public interest representative. A systematic search for literature will be conducted on various, pertinent databases to identify relevant literature such as peer-reviewed articles, editorials, discussion papers and empirical research papers. Additionally, other sources of relevant literature such as policies, guidelines, reports and conference abstracts, identified through key website searches will be considered for inclusion. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. The results will be disseminated through an open access peer-reviewed international journal, conference presentations and a plain language summary that will be shared with the public and other relevant stakeholders.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059837

Cites

61 of 61 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?

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

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Job, C., Adenipekun, B., Cleves, A., & Samuriwo, R.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Velindre NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Bradford (GB)
Corresponding author
Job, Claire
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-12
Volume
12
Issue
12
Pages
e059837
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4311410373
Cited by
20
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Research Capacity Building Collaboration Wales
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
Keywords
implicit bias, healthcare workers, socioeconomic status, low socioeconomic status, clinical decision-making, health disparities, socioeconomic inequalities in health, patient care
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Bias, Implicit, Low Socioeconomic Status, Scoping Reviews as Topic, Scoping Reviews As Topic, Adult, Health Personnel, Humans, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic

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