Cited by 2,176Racial and Ethnic Identity ResearchSocial and Intergroup PsychologyCultural Competency in Health Care

Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review

Open access
Hall, William J., Chapman, Mimi V., Lee, Kent M., Merino, Yesenia M., Thomas, Tainayah W., Payne, B. Keith, Eng, Eugenia, Day, Steven H. +1 more·2015·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the United States, people of color face disparities in access to health care, the quality of care received, and health outcomes. The attitudes and behaviors of health care providers have been identified as one of many factors that contribute to health disparities. Implicit attitudes are thoughts and feelings that often exist outside of conscious awareness, and thus are difficult to consciously acknowledge and control. These attitudes are often automatically activated and can influence human behavior without conscious volition. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the extent to which implicit racial/ethnic bias exists among health care professionals and examined the relationships between health care professionals' implicit attitudes about racial/ethnic groups and health care outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: To identify relevant studies, we searched 10 computerized bibliographic databases and used a reference harvesting technique. SELECTION CRITERIA: We assessed eligibility using double independent screening based on a priori inclusion criteria. We included studies if they sampled existing health care providers or those in training to become health care providers, measured and reported results on implicit racial/ethnic bias, and were written in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We included a total of 15 studies for review and then subjected them to double independent data extraction. Information extracted included the citation, purpose of the study, use of theory, study design, study site and location, sampling strategy, response rate, sample size and characteristics, measurement of relevant variables, analyses performed, and results and findings. We summarized study design characteristics, and categorized and then synthesized substantive findings. MAIN RESULTS: Almost all studies used cross-sectional designs, convenience sampling, US participants, and the Implicit Association Test to assess implicit bias. Low to moderate levels of implicit racial/ethnic bias were found among health care professionals in all but 1 study. These implicit bias scores are similar to those in the general population. Levels of implicit bias against Black, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, and dark-skinned people were relatively similar across these groups. Although some associations between implicit bias and health care outcomes were nonsignificant, results also showed that implicit bias was significantly related to patient-provider interactions, treatment decisions, treatment adherence, and patient health outcomes. Implicit attitudes were more often significantly related to patient-provider interactions and health outcomes than treatment processes. CONCLUSIONS: Most health care providers appear to have implicit bias in terms of positive attitudes toward Whites and negative attitudes toward people of color. Future studies need to employ more rigorous methods to examine the relationships between implicit bias and health care outcomes. Interventions targeting implicit attitudes among health care professionals are needed because implicit bias may contribute to health disparities for people of color.

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.2015.302903

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?

  • The scientific community working in this area agrees that the relationship between levels of implicit bias in healthcare professionals and clinical decision-making is complex and that there is currently a lack of good evidence for a direct negative influence of biases.

    “The scientific community working in this area agrees that the relationship between levels of implicit bias in healthcare professionals and clinical decision-making is complex and that there is currently a lack of good evidence for a direct negative influence of biases [16, 17].”

    From Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [17]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Discrimination was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was assessed with the Brier Score.

    “Discrimination was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was assessed with the Brier Score.”

    From Racial and ethnic disparities in interhospital transfer for complex emergency general surgical disease across the United States (2023) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results describe IAT D scores for implicit racial bias, and the Methods describe Cohen’s κ for screening agreement. Searches for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the Brier Score found no passage addressing the claimed discrimination or calibration measures. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 2,176

Authors
Hall, W. J., Chapman, M. V., Lee, K. M., Merino, Y. M., Thomas, T. W., Payne, B. K., Eng, E., Day, S. H., & Coyne-Beasley, T.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2015-12
Volume
105
Issue
12
Pages
e60-e76
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2145172939
Cited by
2,176
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 157 · 2025: 262 · 2024: 296 · 2023: 323 · 2022: 329 · 2021: 293 · 2020: 213 · 2019: 139 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 1
FWCI
21.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001111, UL1TR002489)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH019117)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R24EB018620, 1R23EB018620-01)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
Keywords
ethnic prejudice, healthcare workers, health disparities, patient-provider interaction, treatment decision-making, medication adherence, health outcomes, Implicit Association Test, people of color, Black patients, Hispanic patients
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Health Personnel, Humans, Treatment Outcome, Healthcare Disparities, 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