Healthcare inequities and healthcare providers: we are part of the problem.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Crystal N Campbell
{"title":"Healthcare inequities and healthcare providers: we are part of the problem.","authors":"Crystal N Campbell","doi":"10.1186/s12939-025-02464-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The United States (U.S.) spends the highest amount on healthcare globally, at $12,434 per capita, yet experiences poor health outcomes, including lower life expectancy and higher rates of preventable mortality. With a life expectancy of 76.4 years, the U.S. lags behind other high-income countries, which have an average of 81.1 years. Health inequities, especially among marginalized racial and ethnic groups, contribute significantly to these disparities. Implicit bias among healthcare providers plays a critical role in perpetuating these inequities, resulting in misdiagnoses, undertreatment, and patient mistrust.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This paper examines the role of implicit bias in healthcare disparities, its impact on marginalized populations, and the ethical responsibility of healthcare providers in mitigating bias. It explores the neuroscientific and psychosocial mechanisms of implicit bias and its effects on patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature review was conducted using PubMed, APA PsycNet, JSTOR, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. The search included peer-reviewed articles from 2008 to 2025 discussing implicit bias in healthcare, its effects on marginalized groups, and evidence-based mitigation strategies. Exclusion criteria included responses and commentaries.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Quantitative findings on implicit bias mitigation strategies show mixed results. Counter-stereotypic strategies and intention-setting interventions reduced Implicit Association Test (IAT) scores by 0.15 at 4 weeks and 0.17 at 8 weeks. However, some strategies, like stereotype replacement and intergroup contact, consistently showed measurable positive effects. Qualitative findings revealed that simulation-based training and perspective-taking significantly increased self-awareness, empathy, and behavioral changes in healthcare providers. Mindfulness meditation and emotional regulation techniques helped reduce stress and bias in high-pressure settings. These findings suggest that while some strategies are effective in the short term, long-term success requires ongoing training, continuous reflection, and practical application in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Health inequities in the U.S. are a public health crisis, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. These disparities are preventable, yet persistent due to systemic issues. Healthcare providers must address implicit biases and commit to unbiased, ethical care. Institutions must prioritize health equity through inclusive cultures, comprehensive bias training, and accountability, exemplified by efforts like UW Medicine's bias incident reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":13745,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Equity in Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Equity in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02464-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The United States (U.S.) spends the highest amount on healthcare globally, at $12,434 per capita, yet experiences poor health outcomes, including lower life expectancy and higher rates of preventable mortality. With a life expectancy of 76.4 years, the U.S. lags behind other high-income countries, which have an average of 81.1 years. Health inequities, especially among marginalized racial and ethnic groups, contribute significantly to these disparities. Implicit bias among healthcare providers plays a critical role in perpetuating these inequities, resulting in misdiagnoses, undertreatment, and patient mistrust.

Purpose: This paper examines the role of implicit bias in healthcare disparities, its impact on marginalized populations, and the ethical responsibility of healthcare providers in mitigating bias. It explores the neuroscientific and psychosocial mechanisms of implicit bias and its effects on patient outcomes.

Methods: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, APA PsycNet, JSTOR, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. The search included peer-reviewed articles from 2008 to 2025 discussing implicit bias in healthcare, its effects on marginalized groups, and evidence-based mitigation strategies. Exclusion criteria included responses and commentaries.

Findings: Quantitative findings on implicit bias mitigation strategies show mixed results. Counter-stereotypic strategies and intention-setting interventions reduced Implicit Association Test (IAT) scores by 0.15 at 4 weeks and 0.17 at 8 weeks. However, some strategies, like stereotype replacement and intergroup contact, consistently showed measurable positive effects. Qualitative findings revealed that simulation-based training and perspective-taking significantly increased self-awareness, empathy, and behavioral changes in healthcare providers. Mindfulness meditation and emotional regulation techniques helped reduce stress and bias in high-pressure settings. These findings suggest that while some strategies are effective in the short term, long-term success requires ongoing training, continuous reflection, and practical application in clinical practice.

Conclusion: Health inequities in the U.S. are a public health crisis, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. These disparities are preventable, yet persistent due to systemic issues. Healthcare providers must address implicit biases and commit to unbiased, ethical care. Institutions must prioritize health equity through inclusive cultures, comprehensive bias training, and accountability, exemplified by efforts like UW Medicine's bias incident reporting.

医疗不公平和医疗服务提供者:我们是问题的一部分。
背景:美国是全球医疗保健支出最高的国家,人均医疗保健支出达 12,434 美元,但其健康状况却很糟糕,包括预期寿命较短和可预防的死亡率较高。美国的预期寿命为 76.4 岁,落后于其他平均预期寿命为 81.1 岁的高收入国家。健康方面的不平等,尤其是边缘化种族和民族群体之间的不平等,是造成这些差距的重要原因。医疗服务提供者的隐性偏见在使这些不平等现象长期存在的过程中起着至关重要的作用,导致误诊、治疗不足和病人不信任。本文探讨了隐性偏见的神经科学和社会心理机制及其对患者治疗效果的影响:使用 PubMed、APA PsycNet、JSTOR、ProQuest 和 Google Scholar 进行了文献综述。搜索范围包括 2008 年至 2025 年间讨论医疗保健中的隐性偏见、其对边缘化群体的影响以及循证缓解策略的同行评审文章。排除标准包括回复和评论:关于内隐偏见缓解策略的定量研究结果不一。反刻板印象策略和意向设定干预在 4 周时可将内隐关联测试 (IAT) 分数降低 0.15,在 8 周时可降低 0.17。然而,一些策略,如刻板印象替代和群体间接触,始终显示出可测量的积极效果。定性研究结果表明,模拟训练和透视法显著提高了医疗服务提供者的自我意识、同理心和行为变化。正念冥想和情绪调节技巧有助于减轻高压环境下的压力和偏见。这些研究结果表明,虽然某些策略在短期内有效,但长期的成功需要持续的培训、不断的反思以及在临床实践中的实际应用:美国的健康不平等是一场公共卫生危机,对边缘化群体的影响尤为严重。这些不平等现象是可以预防的,但由于系统性问题而长期存在。医疗服务提供者必须解决隐性偏见问题,并致力于提供无偏见、合乎道德的医疗服务。医疗机构必须通过包容性文化、全面的偏见培训和问责制(如华大医学部的偏见事件报告)来优先考虑健康公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
162
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal for Equity in Health is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal presenting evidence relevant to the search for, and attainment of, equity in health across and within countries. International Journal for Equity in Health aims to improve the understanding of issues that influence the health of populations. This includes the discussion of political, policy-related, economic, social and health services-related influences, particularly with regard to systematic differences in distributions of one or more aspects of health in population groups defined demographically, geographically, or socially.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信