Challenges and Opportunities for Clinician Implicit Bias Training: Insights from Perinatal Care Stakeholders.

IF 2.6 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Equity Pub Date : 2023-09-13 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1089/heq.2023.0126
Sarah B Garrett, Linda Jones, Alexandra Montague, Haleemat Fa-Yusuf, Julie Harris-Taylor, Breezy Powell, Erica Chan, Stephen Zamarripa, Sarah Hooper, Brittany D Chambers Butcher
{"title":"Challenges and Opportunities for Clinician Implicit Bias Training: Insights from Perinatal Care Stakeholders.","authors":"Sarah B Garrett, Linda Jones, Alexandra Montague, Haleemat Fa-Yusuf, Julie Harris-Taylor, Breezy Powell, Erica Chan, Stephen Zamarripa, Sarah Hooper, Brittany D Chambers Butcher","doi":"10.1089/heq.2023.0126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In an attempt to address health inequities, many U.S. states have considered or enacted legislation requiring antibias or implicit bias training (IBT) for health care providers. California's \"Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act\" requires that hospitals and alternative birthing centers provide IBT to perinatal clinicians with the goal of improving clinical outcomes for Black women and birthing people. However, there is as yet insufficient evidence to identify what IBT approaches, if any, achieve this goal. Engaging the experiences and insights of IBT stakeholders is a foundational step in informing nascent IBT policy, curricula, and implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multimethod community-based participatory research study with key stakeholders of California's IBT policy to identify key challenges and recommendations for effective clinician IBT. We used focus groups, in-depth interviews, combined inductive/deductive thematic analysis, and multiple techniques to promote rigor and validity. Participants were San Francisco Bay Area-based individuals who identified as Black or African American women with a recent hospital birth (<i>n</i>=20), and hospital-based perinatal clinicians (<i>n</i>=20).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified numerous actionable challenges and recommendations regarding aspects of (1) state law; (2) IBT content and format; (3) health care facility IBT implementation; (4) health care facility environment; and (5) provider commitment and behaviors. Patient and clinician insights overlapped substantially. Many respondents felt IBT would improve outcomes only in combination with other antiracism interventions.</p><p><strong>Health equity implications: </strong>These stakeholder insights offer policy-makers, health system leaders, and curriculum developers crucial guidance for the future development and implementation of clinician antibias interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":36602,"journal":{"name":"Health Equity","volume":"7 1","pages":"506-519"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10507933/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Equity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2023.0126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In an attempt to address health inequities, many U.S. states have considered or enacted legislation requiring antibias or implicit bias training (IBT) for health care providers. California's "Dignity in Pregnancy and Childbirth Act" requires that hospitals and alternative birthing centers provide IBT to perinatal clinicians with the goal of improving clinical outcomes for Black women and birthing people. However, there is as yet insufficient evidence to identify what IBT approaches, if any, achieve this goal. Engaging the experiences and insights of IBT stakeholders is a foundational step in informing nascent IBT policy, curricula, and implementation.

Methods: We conducted a multimethod community-based participatory research study with key stakeholders of California's IBT policy to identify key challenges and recommendations for effective clinician IBT. We used focus groups, in-depth interviews, combined inductive/deductive thematic analysis, and multiple techniques to promote rigor and validity. Participants were San Francisco Bay Area-based individuals who identified as Black or African American women with a recent hospital birth (n=20), and hospital-based perinatal clinicians (n=20).

Results: We identified numerous actionable challenges and recommendations regarding aspects of (1) state law; (2) IBT content and format; (3) health care facility IBT implementation; (4) health care facility environment; and (5) provider commitment and behaviors. Patient and clinician insights overlapped substantially. Many respondents felt IBT would improve outcomes only in combination with other antiracism interventions.

Health equity implications: These stakeholder insights offer policy-makers, health system leaders, and curriculum developers crucial guidance for the future development and implementation of clinician antibias interventions.

临床医生隐性偏见培训的挑战和机遇:来自围产期护理利益相关者的见解。
引言:为了解决健康不平等问题,美国许多州都考虑或颁布了立法,要求医疗保健提供者接受抗菌或隐性偏见培训(IBT)。加利福尼亚州的《妊娠和分娩尊严法案》要求医院和替代分娩中心向围产期临床医生提供IBT,目的是改善黑人妇女和分娩者的临床结果。然而,目前还没有足够的证据来确定IBT是如何实现这一目标的。吸收IBT利益相关者的经验和见解是为新生的IBT政策、课程和实施提供信息的基础性步骤。方法:我们与加州IBT政策的主要利益相关者进行了一项基于社区的多方法参与性研究,以确定有效临床医生IBT的关键挑战和建议。我们使用焦点小组、深入访谈、归纳/演绎主题分析相结合以及多种技术来提高严谨性和有效性。参与者是旧金山湾区的黑人或最近住院分娩的非裔美国妇女(n=20)和医院的围产期临床医生(n=2 0)。结果:我们确定了许多关于(1)州法律方面的可操作挑战和建议;(2) IBT内容和格式;(3) 卫生保健机构IBT的实施;(4) 卫生保健设施环境;以及(5)提供者承诺和行为。患者和临床医生的见解基本重叠。许多受访者认为IBT只有与其他反种族主义干预措施相结合才能改善结果。健康公平影响:这些利益相关者的见解为政策制定者、卫生系统领导者和课程开发人员提供了未来临床医生抗菌干预措施开发和实施的重要指导。
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
Health Equity
Health Equity Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
97
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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