"But what do you really think?" Nurses' contrasting explicit and implicit attitudes towards people with disabilities using the implicit association test.
{"title":"\"But what do you really think?\" Nurses' contrasting explicit and implicit attitudes towards people with disabilities using the implicit association test.","authors":"Daniel W Derbyshire, Tamsin Keay","doi":"10.1111/jocn.17097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate how nurses' implicit and explicit attitudes towards people with disabilities (PWD) compare to (1) other healthcare providers and (2) non-healthcare providers.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We present an analysis of secondary data from the publicly available disability Implicit Association Test (IAT). We compare the explicit and implicit attitudes towards PWD for (1) nurses (n = 24,545), (2) other healthcare providers (n = 57,818) and (3) non-healthcare providers (n = 547,966) for a total of 630,238 respondents, between 2006 and 2021.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We use publicly available data for the Disability IAT from Open Science Framework repository of Project Implicit available at https://osf.io/tx5fi/.</p><p><strong>Reporting: </strong>STROBE checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There is a distinct contrast between nurses' explicit and implicit attitudes. While nurses have more positive explicit attitudes towards PWD compared to other groups, they also have more negative implicit attitudes towards PWD. As such there is a contrast between nurses' stated (explicit) attitudes and their unconscious (implicit) attitudes towards PWD. Further, we find that implicit bias towards PWD-among all groups-has not improved over the 15 year period of our sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We present a contrast between nurses' explicit and implicit attitude towards PWD compared to non-healthcare providers. We posit that implicit bias is driven by a combination of workload and stress which drives nurses to unconscious modes of thinking more frequently.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>We discuss three potential tools for improved educational praxis regarding treatment of PWD; (1) more PWD service user involvement, (2) the use of mindfulness techniques to reduce stress and (3) the use of patient contact simulation to promote education and understanding.</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>There is no patient or public contribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":50236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17097","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: To investigate how nurses' implicit and explicit attitudes towards people with disabilities (PWD) compare to (1) other healthcare providers and (2) non-healthcare providers.
Method: We present an analysis of secondary data from the publicly available disability Implicit Association Test (IAT). We compare the explicit and implicit attitudes towards PWD for (1) nurses (n = 24,545), (2) other healthcare providers (n = 57,818) and (3) non-healthcare providers (n = 547,966) for a total of 630,238 respondents, between 2006 and 2021.
Data sources: We use publicly available data for the Disability IAT from Open Science Framework repository of Project Implicit available at https://osf.io/tx5fi/.
Reporting: STROBE checklist.
Results: There is a distinct contrast between nurses' explicit and implicit attitudes. While nurses have more positive explicit attitudes towards PWD compared to other groups, they also have more negative implicit attitudes towards PWD. As such there is a contrast between nurses' stated (explicit) attitudes and their unconscious (implicit) attitudes towards PWD. Further, we find that implicit bias towards PWD-among all groups-has not improved over the 15 year period of our sample.
Conclusions: We present a contrast between nurses' explicit and implicit attitude towards PWD compared to non-healthcare providers. We posit that implicit bias is driven by a combination of workload and stress which drives nurses to unconscious modes of thinking more frequently.
Implications: We discuss three potential tools for improved educational praxis regarding treatment of PWD; (1) more PWD service user involvement, (2) the use of mindfulness techniques to reduce stress and (3) the use of patient contact simulation to promote education and understanding.
Patient or public contribution: There is no patient or public contribution.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which advances and supports the practice and discipline of nursing. The Journal also aims to promote the international exchange of ideas and experience that draws from the different cultures in which practice takes place. Further, JCN seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Emphasis is placed on promoting critical debate on the art and science of nursing practice.
JCN is essential reading for anyone involved in nursing practice, whether clinicians, researchers, educators, managers, policy makers, or students. The development of clinical practice and the changing patterns of inter-professional working are also central to JCN''s scope of interest. Contributions are welcomed from other health professionals on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice.
We publish high quality papers from across the methodological spectrum that make an important and novel contribution to the field of clinical nursing (regardless of where care is provided), and which demonstrate clinical application and international relevance.