调查公平之路:减轻医学教育评估中隐性偏见的解决方案的范围审查。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Perspectives on Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-03-03 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5334/pme.1716
Kristin E Mangalindan, Tasha R Wyatt, Kirsten R Brown, Marina Shapiro, Lauren A Maggio
{"title":"调查公平之路:减轻医学教育评估中隐性偏见的解决方案的范围审查。","authors":"Kristin E Mangalindan, Tasha R Wyatt, Kirsten R Brown, Marina Shapiro, Lauren A Maggio","doi":"10.5334/pme.1716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In medical education, assessments have high-stakes implications. Yet, assessments are rife with unconscious bias, which contributes to inequitable social structures. Implicit bias in assessment must be addressed because medical educators use assessments to guide learning and promote development of physicians' careers. In this scoping review, the authors map the literature on implicit bias in assessment, as it applies to: 1) the types of implicit bias addressed, 2) the targets and types of interventions studied or proposed, and 3) how publications describe intervention efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a scoping review of the literature on interventions to mitigate implicit bias that was published between January 2010 and August 2023. Author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with discussion and consensus. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was informed by Anderson et al's three assessment orientations: fairness, assessment for inclusion (AfI), and justice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>7,831 articles were identified; 54 articles were included. The majority (n = 37; 69%) of articles focus on implicit bias toward those underrepresented in medicine. Interventions to mitigate implicit bias were targeted toward admissions and applications, faculty training, recruitment, summative assessments, and evaluation templates. Interventions had <i>fairness</i> (n = 43; 96%) and <i>AfI</i> (n = 22; 49%) orientations; no articles used a <i>justice-orientation</i>. For the sub-set of research studies (n = 40), almost all (n = 34; 85%) examined a single program/institution.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This scoping review showed that more work is necessary to address different types of implicit biases, move scholarship beyond single-institution studies, refine existing interventions, and evaluate how efficacy is defined.</p>","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"14 1","pages":"92-106"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11887471/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the Road to Equity: A Scoping Review of Solutions to Mitigate Implicit Bias in Assessment within Medical Education.\",\"authors\":\"Kristin E Mangalindan, Tasha R Wyatt, Kirsten R Brown, Marina Shapiro, Lauren A Maggio\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pme.1716\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In medical education, assessments have high-stakes implications. Yet, assessments are rife with unconscious bias, which contributes to inequitable social structures. Implicit bias in assessment must be addressed because medical educators use assessments to guide learning and promote development of physicians' careers. In this scoping review, the authors map the literature on implicit bias in assessment, as it applies to: 1) the types of implicit bias addressed, 2) the targets and types of interventions studied or proposed, and 3) how publications describe intervention efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a scoping review of the literature on interventions to mitigate implicit bias that was published between January 2010 and August 2023. Author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with discussion and consensus. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was informed by Anderson et al's three assessment orientations: fairness, assessment for inclusion (AfI), and justice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>7,831 articles were identified; 54 articles were included. The majority (n = 37; 69%) of articles focus on implicit bias toward those underrepresented in medicine. Interventions to mitigate implicit bias were targeted toward admissions and applications, faculty training, recruitment, summative assessments, and evaluation templates. Interventions had <i>fairness</i> (n = 43; 96%) and <i>AfI</i> (n = 22; 49%) orientations; no articles used a <i>justice-orientation</i>. For the sub-set of research studies (n = 40), almost all (n = 34; 85%) examined a single program/institution.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This scoping review showed that more work is necessary to address different types of implicit biases, move scholarship beyond single-institution studies, refine existing interventions, and evaluate how efficacy is defined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"92-106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11887471/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1716\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1716","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:在医学教育中,评估具有高风险的含义。然而,评估充斥着无意识的偏见,这导致了不公平的社会结构。必须解决评估中的内隐偏见,因为医学教育者使用评估来指导学习和促进医生职业发展。在这篇范围综述中,作者绘制了评估中内隐偏见的文献,因为它适用于:1)解决内隐偏见的类型,2)研究或提出的干预措施的目标和类型,以及3)出版物如何描述干预效果。方法:作者对2010年1月至2023年8月发表的有关干预措施减轻内隐偏见的文献进行了范围综述。作者对独立筛选文章纳入和提取数据。分歧通过讨论和协商一致解决。定性和定量分析的依据是Anderson等人提出的三个评估方向:公平性、包容性评估(AfI)和公平性。结果:共鉴定出7831篇;共纳入54篇文章。大多数(n = 37;69%)的文章关注的是对医学中代表性不足的人的隐性偏见。缓解内隐偏见的干预措施针对的是招生和申请、教师培训、招聘、总结性评估和评估模板。干预措施具有公平性(n = 43;96%)和AfI (n = 22;49%)方向;没有文章使用了正义取向。对于研究研究的子集(n = 40),几乎所有(n = 34;85%)考察了单个项目/机构。讨论:这一范围综述表明,需要做更多的工作来解决不同类型的内隐偏见,使学术研究超越单一机构的研究,完善现有的干预措施,并评估如何定义疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating the Road to Equity: A Scoping Review of Solutions to Mitigate Implicit Bias in Assessment within Medical Education.

Introduction: In medical education, assessments have high-stakes implications. Yet, assessments are rife with unconscious bias, which contributes to inequitable social structures. Implicit bias in assessment must be addressed because medical educators use assessments to guide learning and promote development of physicians' careers. In this scoping review, the authors map the literature on implicit bias in assessment, as it applies to: 1) the types of implicit bias addressed, 2) the targets and types of interventions studied or proposed, and 3) how publications describe intervention efficacy.

Methods: The authors conducted a scoping review of the literature on interventions to mitigate implicit bias that was published between January 2010 and August 2023. Author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with discussion and consensus. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was informed by Anderson et al's three assessment orientations: fairness, assessment for inclusion (AfI), and justice.

Results: 7,831 articles were identified; 54 articles were included. The majority (n = 37; 69%) of articles focus on implicit bias toward those underrepresented in medicine. Interventions to mitigate implicit bias were targeted toward admissions and applications, faculty training, recruitment, summative assessments, and evaluation templates. Interventions had fairness (n = 43; 96%) and AfI (n = 22; 49%) orientations; no articles used a justice-orientation. For the sub-set of research studies (n = 40), almost all (n = 34; 85%) examined a single program/institution.

Discussion: This scoping review showed that more work is necessary to address different types of implicit biases, move scholarship beyond single-institution studies, refine existing interventions, and evaluate how efficacy is defined.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO). Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信