Cited by 815Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The Associations of Clinicians’ Implicit Attitudes About Race With Medical Visit Communication and Patient Ratings of Interpersonal Care

Open access
Cooper, Lisa A., Roter, Debra L., Carson, Kathryn A., Beach, Mary Catherine, Sabin, Janice A., Greenwald, Anthony G., Inui, Thomas S.·2012·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We examined the associations of clinicians' implicit attitudes about race with visit communication and patient ratings of care. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 40 primary care clinicians and 269 patients in urban community-based practices, we measured clinicians' implicit general race bias and race and compliance stereotyping with 2 implicit association tests and related them to audiotape measures of visit communication and patient ratings. RESULTS: Among Black patients, general race bias was associated with more clinician verbal dominance, lower patient positive affect, and poorer ratings of interpersonal care; race and compliance stereotyping was associated with longer visits, slower speech, less patient centeredness, and poorer ratings of interpersonal care. Among White patients, bias was associated with more verbal dominance and better ratings of interpersonal care; race and compliance stereotyping was associated with less verbal dominance, shorter visits, faster speech, more patient centeredness, higher clinician positive affect, and lower ratings of some aspects of interpersonal care. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician implicit race bias and race and compliance stereotyping are associated with markers of poor visit communication and poor ratings of care, particularly among Black patients.

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 · 10.2105/ajph.2011.300558

Cites

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?

  • In one study, the negative rating of interaction was also given by external observers.

    “and, in one study, also negatively rated by external observers [23].”
  • The only three studies conducted in naturalistic settings combined the IAT with measures of physician-patient interaction.

    “The only three studies conducted in naturalistic settings combined the IAT with measures of physician-patient interaction [22–24].”
  • Three studies found a significant correlation between high levels of physicians' implicit bias against blacks on IAT scores and interaction that was negatively rated by black patients.

    “Three studies found a significant correlation between high levels of physicians’ implicit bias against blacks on IAT scores and interaction that was negatively rated by black patients [23, 24, 44]”
  • The review shows clearer evidence for a relationship between implicit bias and negative effects on clinical interaction.

    “As our review shows, there is clearer evidence for a relationship between implicit bias and negative effects on clinical interaction [23, 24, 44].”
  • In some studies, the attitudes of patients towards healthcare professionals were recorded and used to evaluate clinical interaction.

    “In some studies, the attitudes of patients towards healthcare professionals were recorded and used to evaluate clinical interaction [23, 24, 44].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 76 · Cited by 815

Authors
Cooper, L. A., Roter, D. L., Carson, K. A., Beach, M. C., Sabin, J. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Inui, T. S.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2012-05
Volume
102
Issue
5
Pages
979-987
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2117737167
Cited by
815
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 7
FWCI
64.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS013645)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01-HL69403, R01HL069403, K24HL083113)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
interpersonal care, primary care providers, Black patients, verbal dominance, patient-centeredness, Implicit Association Test
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Black or African American, Communication, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prejudice, Professional-Patient Relations, Socioeconomic Factors, Stereotyping, Urban Population, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Racial Groups

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