As health care professionals, we go to work every day intending to provide an optimal level of care to every patient we encounter. As noble as that intention is, it does not represent the level of care received by every patient. An abundant volume of research attests that many groups of patients receive a significantly lower quality of care—that is, substandard care—attributable in part to biases held by health care providers. Implicit (or unconscious) bias refers to positive or negative attitudes or stereotypes, activated automatically and involuntarily, that influence our understanding, decisions, and behaviors without our awareness or voluntary control.13  Despite these attitudes operating outside the provider’s conscious awareness,4,5  they can compromise patient care.

Overview of Problem

Patients Most at Risk

The patients most at risk for receiving less than the current standard of care because of unconscious bias can be distinguished by broad features such as age, gender, and race. More specifically, patients with any of the following attributes have cause for concern regarding whether they will receive the current standard of care for their health problems: female gender, advanced age, nonwhite race, low socioeconomic status, non–English speaking, nonheterosexual, disabled, obese, mental illness, AIDS, and drug addiction.2,621 

Just one of these attributes, female gender, pertains to roughly half the world’s population, so the problem of implicit bias is clearly expansive in scope. Implicit bias can affect any age group and carves an inclusive path across diverse clinical areas and practice settings. Within critical care, such bias is evidenced in patients with acute coronary artery disease, coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, and trauma. (See detailed coverage and research related to gender bias against women in 2 previous Critical Care Nurse editorials.22,23 )

Additional concerns relate to the potential effects of implicit bias on already disadvantaged patient groups, such as the poor, children, and those with low health literacy, who are already vulnerable to limited health services. An extended concern relates to patients with multiple attributes, for example, an elderly black woman with obesity and dementia, lacking health insurance, confined to a wheelchair, that may individually and cumulatively heighten vulnerability to the adverse effects of this bias.24 

No one appears immune to implicit bias, including those who explicitly disavow such beliefs.4,5,2528  Two recent systematic reviews7,29  have confirmed reports that health care professionals exhibit implicit bias at levels comparable to those in the general population.30 

How Implicit Bias Is Manifested

A systematic review by Hall and colleagues29  revealed that implicit bias is manifested in 4 key areas: patient-provider interactions, treatment decisions, treatment adherence, and patient health outcomes. How a physician communicates, including verbal cues, body language, and nonverbal behavior (physical proximity, frequency of eye contact) may manifest subconscious bias.7,10  Several investigators found evidence that providers interact more effectively with white than nonwhite patients.3133  Bias may affect the nature and extent of diagnostic assessments and the range and scope of therapies considered.2  Nonwhite patients receive fewer cardiovascular interventions and kidney transplants.10  One meta-analysis found that 20 of 25 assumption method studies demonstrated bias either in the diagnosis, treatment recommendations, number of questions asked, or tests ordered.7  Women are 3 times less likely than men to receive knee arthroplasty despite comparable indications.6,9,10,21  Bias can detrimentally affect whether patients seek or return for care, follow treatment protocols, and, perhaps cumulatively, can influence outcomes of care.2  Numerous research studies7,22,23,29,34  offer evidence that implicit bias is associated with higher complication rates, greater morbidity, and higher patient mortality.

How Implicit Bias Is Assessed

Because this bias originates and operates outside conscious awareness, it cannot be accessed by surveys. In addition, because explicitly professed beliefs may diverge markedly from implicit attitudes, unconscious bias cannot be identified via explicit measurement. Two methods currently used to identify it are the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and the Assumption Method.

The most frequently used device for assessing implicit bias is the IAT, a product of Project Implicit, a collaborative research effort shared by Harvard University, University of Washington, and University of Virginia to examine attitudes and feelings outside of conscious awareness and control.35  The test involves a computerized, timed, dual-categorization that measures implicit preferences reflected in the strength of associations between concepts (such as women, gay people) and evaluations (good, bad) or stereotypes (strong, weak). Test takers must quickly sort words into categories located on the left and right sides of the computer screen by pressing the “e” key if the word belongs to the category on the left and the “i” key if it belongs to the category on the right. The fundamental premise is that responses are faster to make when both items share the same response key. Someone who thinks women are “weak” and “followers” would respond more quickly when “woman” is paired with “weak” or “follower,” rather than with “strong” or “leader.” The IAT can test for attitudes related to age, race, gender, disability, ethnicity, weight, sexuality, and religion.35,36  The IAT is not without its detractors and critics, who view its methodology as simplistic and its findings unrelated to behavior.7,3742 

The Assumption Method uses clinical vignettes, identical except for 1 feature related to the bias variable, then measures differences in response across participants. If a statistically significant difference is demonstrated, researchers infer that it is at least partly due to implicit processes related to that bias variable.7 

Managing Implicit Bias: Preliminary Considerations

The formation of stereotypical biases is a normal aspect of human cognitive development.3,34  Despite its potentially problematic effects, stereotyping is a means we learn to distinguish friends from foes when we interact, automatically categorizing either favorably or unfavorably. Formation of these biases is deeply rooted and resistant to change, even with personal experience and objective evidence to the contrary.10 

Before the effects of implicit bias can be reduced, its existence must be identified. Our established procedures for monitoring the quality of care delivered can be extended slightly to include comparing findings across potential bias categories (eg, gender, race, age) to note any deficiencies in delivered care. For example, researchers at Johns Hopkins incidentally discovered that gender bias in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis was virtually eliminated when an evidence-based checklist was combined with full compliance (by making physician completion of the checklist requirements mandatory).43,44 

Implicit bias is more likely to surface at certain times; it is more likely to be activated and expressed when someone is tired, busy, under pressure, carrying a high cognitive load (a lot on their mind), or when decisions must be made with incomplete or ambiguous information.4547  These circumstances are common in health care, but being mindful of them may prompt taking a few moments to gather one’s resources before interacting with patients.

No one wants to admit to having these biases. Particularly for health care professionals, evidence that their views are biased against some patient groups can be perceived as highly negative, unprofessional, socially unacceptable, embarrassing, and personally disappointing. Because we are more predisposed toward managing these attitudes if we are not embarrassed by them,10  Burgess et al34  emphasize the need to avoid making providers ashamed of stereotypical attitudes and to ensure a nonthreatening environment to practice alternative responses.

Minimizing Implicit Bias

Implicit bias is not directly amenable to either prevention or eradication, so designing instructional strategies to thwart its negative effects is challenging. Most of these programs34,4850  use a 2-step approach that includes raising awareness and teaching ways to diminish activation or control how biases affect decisions and behavior.51 

Bias Awareness Strategies

Self-reflection is commonly used to augment awareness of bias,50  though expanded awareness alone does not necessarily alter attitudes about specific categories of patients.52  Researchers admonish us about the need for emphasizing that stereotyping is completely normal and ensuring that self-discovery of biases occurs privately in a nonthreatening environment.53,54  Examples include providing information about the role of provider bias in health disparities, reading related research, completing the IAT with self-reflection exercises, and discussing bias in class. In one study, most students reported positive beliefs about implicit bias, but 22% doubted the IAT’s validity and the existence of health disparities.55  In another study,56  researchers reported that completing the IAT with feedback predicted decreased bias. In sum, these findings suggest that greater awareness of implicit bias may motivate providers to address these prejudices, but only if feedback does not induce defensiveness or denial.51 

Control Strategies

A second approach to manage unconscious bias provides instruction in strategies aimed at controlling the automatic responses made to stigmatized group members. These strategies include perspective-taking, stereotype replacement, individuation via counter-stereotyping, seeking common-group identities, affirming egalitarian goals,48,49,57,58  and partnership building. Of these, perspective-taking (walking in another’s shoes) is the most frequently employed technique. This empathy-enhancing activity59  develops skills in perceiving and responding to situations from another’s frame of reference and has shown some positive effects.5962 

Stereotype replacement focuses on consciously modifying the stereotypical response.58  Individuation involves formulating impressions and responding to others on the basis of their unique qualities rather than on the basis of stereotypical group attributes.48,58  Counter-stereotyping comprises perceiving the person as the opposite of the stereotype.58  Seeking common-group identities is facilitated by expanding opportunities for contact and experience with individuals from groups dissimilar to one’s own.56,58,63 

Research on affirming egalitarian goals indicates that participants are more receptive to acknowledging and modifying their biases when learning sessions start with expressions of commitment to provide the best possible care for all patients and to share in the responsibility to correct disparities in care.34,64,65  Partnership-building entails approaching interactions between providers and patients as a collaborative, patient-centered effort, rather than as one party of higher status directing another of lower status.58  This approach requires both parties to agree on existing health problems, priorities of care, treatment goals, and roles.34 

In some studies, investigators employ multiple rather than single strategies and assess bias months later.58  Another strategy is to institute implicit bias rounds,66  modeled after morbidity and mortality conferences, in which physicians openly address cases in which implicit bias may have adversely affected patient care, thus providing a safe forum for teaching and correction of disparities in care.

These suggested strategies for reducing implicit bias have limited validation, especially in health care settings, so their effectiveness in diminishing inequities in care to vulnerable groups needs ongoing and targeted monitoring for verification. (The Kirwin Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity has designed a website [http://u.osu.edu/breakingbias] that may be a useful resource for sharing strategies for implicit bias mitigation in health care.) Unless and until all patients are receiving the established standard of care, we have more work to do on equitably delivering best practices.

Although implicit bias may affect different aspects of care, these relationships are associations, not cause and effect. Human behavior, including our proclivity for prejudicial behavior, is more complex than simplistic associations might suggest. A meta-analysis41  examining 494 implicit bias studies found that although implicit bias can be changed, the effects are often weak; that procedures that changed implicit bias altered explicit bias considerably less; and that no evidence was found that changes in implicit bias mediate changes in behavior. These findings underscore the importance of monitoring care actually delivered to patients as the litmus test of quality care before any conclusions related to efforts to reduce bias are offered.

Closing

We long ago developed zero tolerance policies for workplace problems such as bullying that are detrimental to staff and patients. I believe that we are overdue in advocating for zero tolerance for delivering substandard care to large segments of our patient populations. Where disparities in care can be traced to differences in the quality of care delivered, we have an obligation to correct those discrepancies to erase the inequities. All of our patients have a right to receive our best care.

References

References
1
Staats
C
,
Capatosto
K
,
Tenney
L
,
Mamo
S
, eds.
State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review 2017
.
Columbus, OH
:
Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, Ohio State University
;
2017
.
2
IHI Multimedia Team
.
Improvement Blog, How to Reduce Implicit Bias
,
September
28
,
2017
. . Accessed May 11, 2018.
3
Rudman
LA
.
Social justice in our minds, homes, and society: the nature, causes and consequences of implicit bias
.
Soc Justice Res
.
2004
;
17
(
2
):
129
142
.
4
Banaji
M
,
Greenwald
AG
.
Implicit stereotyping and prejudice
. In:
Zanna
MP
,
Olson
JM
, eds.
The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium
.
Mahwah, NJ
:
Psychology Press
;
1994
;
7
:
55
76
.
5
Dovidio
JF
,
Kawakami
K
,
Gaertner
SL
.
Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction
.
J Pers Soc Psychol
.
2002
;
82
(
1
):
62
68
.
6
Coyte
PC
,
Hawker
G
,
Croxford
R
,
Attard
C
,
Wright
JG
.
Variation in rheumatologists’ and family physicians’ perceptions of the indications for and outcomes of knee replacement surgery
.
J Rheumatol
.
1996
;
23
(
4
):
730
738
.
7
FitzGerald
C
,
Hurst
S
.
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review
.
BMC Medical Ethics
.
2017
;
18
:
19
.
8
Green
AR
,
Carney
DR
,
Pallin
DJ
, et al
.
Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2007
;
22
(
9
):
1231
1238
.
9
Hawker
GA
,
Wright
JG
,
Coyte
PC
, et al
.
Differences between men and women in the rate of use of hip and knee arthroplasty
.
N Engl J Med
.
2000
;
343
(
14
):
1016
1022
.
10
The Joint Commission, Division of Health Care Improvement
.
Implicit bias in health care
.
Quick Safety
.
April
2016
. Issue
23
, page
1
.
11
Kelly
CE
.
Bringing homophobia out of the closet: antigay bias within the patient–physician relationship
.
Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc
.
1992
;
55
(
1
):
2
8
.
12
Kelly
JA
,
St Lawrence
JS
,
Smith
S
Jr
,
Hood
HV
,
Cook
DJ
.
Stigmatization of AIDS patients by physicians
.
Am J Public Health
.
1987
;
77
(
7
):
789
791
.
13
Lewis
G
,
Croft-Jeffreys
C
,
David
A
.
Are British psychiatrists racist?
Br J Psychiatr
.
1990
;
157
:
410
415
.
14
Schulman
KA
,
Berlin
JA
,
Harless
W
, et al
.
The effect of race and sex on physicians’ recommendations for cardiac catheterization
.
N Engl J Med
.
1999
;
340
(
8
):
618
626
.
15
Schwartz
MB
,
Chambliss
HO
,
Brownell
KD
,
Blair
SN
,
Billington
C
.
Weight bias among health professionals specializing in obesity
.
Obes Res
.
2003
;
11
(
9
):
1033
1039
.
16
Smedley
BD
,
Stith
AY
,
Nelson
AR
, eds.
Unequal Treatment: Confront- ing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare
.
Washington, D.C.
:
National Academy Press
;
2002
.
17
Tobin
JN
,
Wasserheil-Smoller
S
,
Wexler
JP
, et al
.
Sex bias in considering coronary bypass surgery
.
Ann Intern Med
.
1987
;
107
:
19
25
.
18
Moy
E
,
Dayton
E
,
Clancy
CM
.
Compiling the evidence: the national health care disparities reports
.
Health Aff (Millwood)
.
2005
;
24
(
2
):
376
387
.
19
van Ryn
M
.
Research on the provider contribution to race/ethnicity disparities in medical care
.
Med Care
.
2002
;
40
(
suppl
):
140
151
.
20
van Ryn
M
,
Burke
J
.
The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians’ perceptions of patients
.
Soc Sci Med
.
2000
;
50
(
6
):
813
828
.
21
Wright
JG
,
Coyte
P
,
Hawker
G
, et al
.
Variation in orthopedic surgeons’ perceptions of the indications for and outcomes of knee replacement
.
Can Med Assoc J
.
1995
;
152
(
5
):
687
697
.
22
Alspach
JG
.
Is there gender bias in critical care?
Crit Care Nurse
.
2012
;
32
(
6
):
8
14
.
23
Alspach
JG
.
Because women’s lives matter, we need to eliminate gender bias
.
Crit Care Nurse
.
2017
;
37
(
2
):
10
18
.
24
Martin
AK
,
Tavaglione
N
,
Hurst
S
.
Resolving the conflict: clarifying’ vulnerability’ in health care ethics
.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J
.
2014
;
24
:
51
72
.
25
Devine
PG
,
Monteith
MJ
.
Automaticity and control in stereotyping
. In:
Chaiken
S
,
Trope
Y
, eds.
Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology
.
New York, NY
:
Guilford Press
;
1999
:
339
360
.
26
Dovidio
JF
,
Gaertner
SL
.
On the nature of contemporary prejudice: the causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism
. In:
Eberhardt
JL
,
Fiske
ST
, eds.
Racism: The Problem and the Response
.
Newbury Park, CA
:
Sage
;
1998
.
27
Fazio
RH
,
Jackson
JR
,
Dunton
BC
,
Williams
CJ
.
Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: a bona fide pipeline?
J Pers Soc Psychol
.
1995
;
69
(
6
):
1013
1027
.
28
Wilson
TD
,
Lindsey
S
,
Schooler
TY
.
A model of dual attitudes
.
Psychol Rev
.
2000
;
107
(
1
):
101
126
.
29
Hall
WJ
,
Chapman
MV
,
Lee
KM
, et al
.
Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review
.
Am J Public Health
.
2015
;
105
(
12
):
e60
e76
.
30
Burgess
DJ
,
Fu
SS
,
van Ryn
M
.
Why do providers contribute to disparities and what can be done about it?
J Gen Intern Med
.
2004
;
19
(
11
):
1154
1159
.
31
Cooper
LA
,
Roter
DL
,
Johnson
RL
,
Ford
DE
,
Steinwachs
DM
,
Powe
NR
.
Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2003
;
139
(
11
):
907
915
.
32
Johnson
RL
,
Roter
D
,
Powe
NR
,
Cooper
LA
.
Patient race/ethnicity and quality of patient–physician communication during medical visits
.
Am J Public Health
.
2004
;
94
(
12
):
2084
2090
.
33
Cooper
LA
,
Beach
MC
,
Johnson
RL
,
Inui
TS
.
Delving below the surface: understanding how race and ethnicity influence relationships in health care
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2006
;
21
(
suppl 1
):
S21
S27
.
34
Burgess
D
,
van Ryn
M
,
Dovidio
J
,
Saha
S
.
Reducing racial bias among health care providers: lessons from social-cognitive psychology
.
Paper presented at: 142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition
;
November 2014
. . Accessed May 7, 2018.
35
Project Implicit-About Us
. . Accessed May 13, 2018.
36
Project Implicit-Select a Test
. . Accessed May 13, 2018.
37
MacDonald
H
.
The false “science” of implicit bias
.
The Wall Street Journal
.
October
9
,
2017
. . Accessed May 14, 2018.
38
Olson
MA
,
Fazio
RH
.
Relations between implicit measures of prejudice: what are we measuring?
Psychol Sci
.
2003
;
14
(
6
):
636
639
.
39
Oswald
FL
,
Mitchell
G
,
Blanton
H
,
Jaccard
J
,
Tetlock
PE
.
Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies
.
J Pers Soc Psychol
.
2013
;
105
(
2
):
171
192
.
40
Bartlett
T
.
Can we really measure implicit bias? Maybe not
.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
.
January
5
,
2017
.
41
Forscher
P
,
Lai
C
,
Axt
JR
, et al
.
A meta-analysis of change in implicit bias
.
Psychol Bull
.
2017
. . Accessed May 13, 2018.
42
Nagai
A
.
The implicit association test: flawed science tricks Americans into believing they are unconscious racists
.
The Heritage Foundation
.
Special Report 196
.
December
12
,
2017
. . Accessed May 13, 2018.
43
Streiff
MB
,
Carolan
H
,
Hobson
DB
, et al
.
Lessons from the Johns Hopkins Multi-Disciplinary Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prevention Collaborative
.
BMJ
.
2012
;
344
:
e3935
.
44
Nordell
J
.
A fix for gender bias in health care? Check
.
The New York Times
. . Accessed February 3, 2017. Accessed May 13, 2018.
45
Yzerbyt
VY
,
Rogier
A
,
Fiske
ST
.
Group entitativity and social attribution: on translating situational constraints into stereotypes
.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull
.
1998
;
24
(
10
):
1089
1103
.
46
Bertrand
MD
,
Chugh
D
,
Mullainathan
S
.
Implicit discrimination
.
The American Economic Review
.
2005
;
95
(
2
):
94
98
.
47
Burgess
DJ
.
Are providers more likely to contribute to healthcare disparities under high levels of cognitive load? How features of the healthcare setting may lead to biases in medical decision making
.
Med Decis Mak
.
2010
;
30
(
2
):
246
257
.
48
Blair
IV
,
Steiner
JF
,
Havranek
EP
.
Unconscious (implicit) bias and health disparities: where do we go from here?
Permanente J
.
2011
;
15
:
71
78
.
49
Stone
J
,
Moskowitz
GB
.
Non-conscious bias in medical decision making: what can be done to reduce it?
Med Educ
.
2011
;
45
:
768
776
.
50
Teal
CR
,
Shada
RE
,
Gill
AC
, et al
.
When best intentions aren’t enough: helping medical students develop strategies for managing bias about patients
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2010
;
25
(
suppl 2
):
115
118
.
51
Zestcott
CA
,
Blair
IV
,
Stone
J
.
Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review
.
Group Process Intergroup Relat
.
2016
;
19
(
4
):
528
542
.
52
Chapman
EN
,
Kaatz
A
,
Carnes
M
.
Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2013
;
28
:
1504
1510
.
53
Devine
E
,
Vance
SL
.
The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: the role of motivations to respond without prejudice
.
J Pers Soc Psychol
.
2002
;
82
(
5
):
835
848
.
54
Plant
EAD
,
Patricia
G
.
Responses to other-imposed pro-black pressure: acceptance or backlash?
J Exp Soc Psychol
.
2001
;
37
:
486
501
.
55
Gonzalez
CM
,
Kim
MY
,
Marantz
PR
.
Implicit bias and its relation to health disparities: a teaching program and survey of medical students
.
Teach Learn Med
.
2014
;
26
:
64
71
.
56
van Ryn
M
,
Hardeman
R
,
Phelan
SM
, et al
.
Medical school experiences associated with change in implicit racial bias among 3547 students: a medical student CHANGES study report
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2015
;
30
:
1748
1756
.
57
Burgess
D
,
van Ryn
M
,
Dovidio
J
,
Saha
S
.
Reducing racial bias among health care providers: lessons from social-cognitive psychology
.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2007
;
22
:
882
887
.
58
Devine
PG
,
Forscher
PS
,
Austin
AJ
,
Cox
WTL
.
Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: a prejudice habit-breaking intervention
.
J Exp Soc Psychol
.
2012
;
48
:
1267
1278
.
59
van Ryn
M
,
Burgess
DJ
,
Dovidio
JF
, et al
.
The impact of racism on clinician cognition, behavior, and clinical decision making
.
Du Bois Rev
.
2011
;
8
(
1
):
199
218
.
60
Blatt
B
,
LeLacheur
SF
,
Galinsky
AD
,
Simmens
SJ
,
Breenberg
L
.
Does perspective-taking increase satisfaction in medical encounters?
Acad Med
.
2010
;
85
:
1445
1452
.
61
Todd
AR
,
Galinsky
AD
.
Perspective-taking as a strategy for improving intergroup relations: evidence, mechanisms, and qualifications
.
Soc Pers Psychol Compass
.
2014
;
8
:
374
387
.
62
Drwecki
BB
,
Moore
CF
,
Ward
SE
,
Prkachin
KM
.
Reducing racial disparities in pain treatment: the role of empathy and perspective taking
.
Pain
.
2011
;
152
:
1001
1006
.
63
Burke
SE
,
Dovidio
JF
,
Przedworski
JM
, et al
.
Do contact and empathy mitigate bias against gay and lesbian people among heterosexual first-year medical students? A report from the medical student CHANGE study
.
Acad Med
.
2015
;
90
:
645
651
.
64
Howell
JL
,
Shepperd
JA
.
Reducing information avoidance through affirmation
.
Psychol Sci
.
2012
;
23
:
141
145
.
65
Moss-Racusin
CA
,
van der Toorn
J
,
Dovidio
JF
,
Brescoll
VL
,
Graham
MJ
,
Handelsman
J
.
Scientific diversity interventions
.
Science
.
2014
;
343
:
615
616
.
66
Viswanathan
V
,
Seigerman
M
,
Manning
E
,
Aysola
J
.
Examining provider bias in health care through implicit bias rounds
.
Health Affairs Blog
,
July
17
,
2017
. . Accessed May 13, 2018.