在学术医疗中心实施无意识偏见培训的经验教训。

Kansas Journal of Medicine Pub Date : 2022-09-21 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.17161/kjm.vol15.18094
Maria Alonso Luaces, Julie M Galliart, Natabhona M Mabachi, Rosalee Zackula, Danielle Binion, Jerrihlyn McGee
{"title":"在学术医疗中心实施无意识偏见培训的经验教训。","authors":"Maria Alonso Luaces,&nbsp;Julie M Galliart,&nbsp;Natabhona M Mabachi,&nbsp;Rosalee Zackula,&nbsp;Danielle Binion,&nbsp;Jerrihlyn McGee","doi":"10.17161/kjm.vol15.18094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In 2018, our Midwestern university medical center began offering unconscious bias training. Each session concluded with a standard evaluation. We analyzed two years of data that focused on three areas: 1) whether demographic differences or amount of prior knowledge on the topic influenced the training experience; 2) what participants liked best about the training; and 3) whether participants' stated intentions to apply their learning at the end of the training aligned with institutional goals of the training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants attended sessions open to the campus community pre-scheduled by the Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and posted on its website. Chi-square tests were utilized to test associations between outcomes and questionnaire responses. Outcome measures included race/ethnicity, prior knowledge level, and overall rating of the training. Thematic analysis was used to code comments and establish themes from two open-ended survey questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences were found by race and ethnicity for all questionnaire responses; each were p < 0.001. Those who reported they had advanced/expert knowledge on the topic were less likely to report the training increased their knowledge, and those who reported their race as White/Caucasian tended to give the training the highest overall rating, as did heterosexuals. Through thematic analysis, participants valued the interactive nature of the training sessions, the use of storytelling, and the safety of the learning environment. Participants' intention to apply their learning indicated they had gained general awareness of bias and settings where it might influence their work.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In an effort to foster a better working and learning environment for those who are underrepresented in the health professions, training was provide that may not have met the expectations of all participants. At the same time, participants who identified as White clearly increased their awareness of bias. Therefore, it is recommended to move away from one-size-fits-all unconscious bias training and develop a robust training continuum to provide ongoing advancement for diverse audiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":17991,"journal":{"name":"Kansas Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"336-346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/36/77/15-336.PMC9518710.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lessons Learned from Implementing Unconscious Bias Training at an Academic Medical Center.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Alonso Luaces,&nbsp;Julie M Galliart,&nbsp;Natabhona M Mabachi,&nbsp;Rosalee Zackula,&nbsp;Danielle Binion,&nbsp;Jerrihlyn McGee\",\"doi\":\"10.17161/kjm.vol15.18094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In 2018, our Midwestern university medical center began offering unconscious bias training. Each session concluded with a standard evaluation. We analyzed two years of data that focused on three areas: 1) whether demographic differences or amount of prior knowledge on the topic influenced the training experience; 2) what participants liked best about the training; and 3) whether participants' stated intentions to apply their learning at the end of the training aligned with institutional goals of the training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants attended sessions open to the campus community pre-scheduled by the Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and posted on its website. Chi-square tests were utilized to test associations between outcomes and questionnaire responses. Outcome measures included race/ethnicity, prior knowledge level, and overall rating of the training. Thematic analysis was used to code comments and establish themes from two open-ended survey questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences were found by race and ethnicity for all questionnaire responses; each were p < 0.001. Those who reported they had advanced/expert knowledge on the topic were less likely to report the training increased their knowledge, and those who reported their race as White/Caucasian tended to give the training the highest overall rating, as did heterosexuals. Through thematic analysis, participants valued the interactive nature of the training sessions, the use of storytelling, and the safety of the learning environment. Participants' intention to apply their learning indicated they had gained general awareness of bias and settings where it might influence their work.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In an effort to foster a better working and learning environment for those who are underrepresented in the health professions, training was provide that may not have met the expectations of all participants. At the same time, participants who identified as White clearly increased their awareness of bias. Therefore, it is recommended to move away from one-size-fits-all unconscious bias training and develop a robust training continuum to provide ongoing advancement for diverse audiences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kansas Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"336-346\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/36/77/15-336.PMC9518710.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kansas Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.vol15.18094\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kansas Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.vol15.18094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2018年,我们的中西部大学医学中心开始提供无意识偏见培训。每次会议都以标准评价结束。我们分析了两年的数据,主要集中在三个方面:1)人口统计学差异或对该主题的先验知识的数量是否影响培训经验;2)参与者最喜欢培训的哪些方面;3)参与者在培训结束时陈述的应用所学知识的意图是否与培训的机构目标一致。方法:参与者参加由多元化、公平和包容办公室预先安排并在其网站上发布的面向校园社区的会议。卡方检验用于检验结果与问卷回答之间的相关性。结果测量包括种族/民族、先前知识水平和培训的总体评分。主题分析用于对两个开放式调查问题的评论进行编码并确定主题。结果:所有问卷调查结果在种族和民族方面存在显著差异;p < 0.001。那些报告自己在这个话题上有高级/专业知识的人不太可能报告培训增加了他们的知识,那些报告自己是白人/白种人的人倾向于给培训最高的总体评分,异性恋者也是如此。通过专题分析,与会者重视培训课程的互动性、讲故事的使用以及学习环境的安全性。参与者打算应用他们的学习表明,他们已经对偏见和可能影响其工作的环境有了普遍的认识。结论:为了为那些在卫生专业中代表性不足的人创造更好的工作和学习环境,提供的培训可能没有达到所有参与者的期望。与此同时,认为自己是白人的参与者明显增强了他们对偏见的意识。因此,建议摆脱一刀切的无意识偏见训练,并开发一个强大的训练连续体,为不同的受众提供持续的进步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lessons Learned from Implementing Unconscious Bias Training at an Academic Medical Center.

Introduction: In 2018, our Midwestern university medical center began offering unconscious bias training. Each session concluded with a standard evaluation. We analyzed two years of data that focused on three areas: 1) whether demographic differences or amount of prior knowledge on the topic influenced the training experience; 2) what participants liked best about the training; and 3) whether participants' stated intentions to apply their learning at the end of the training aligned with institutional goals of the training.

Methods: Participants attended sessions open to the campus community pre-scheduled by the Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and posted on its website. Chi-square tests were utilized to test associations between outcomes and questionnaire responses. Outcome measures included race/ethnicity, prior knowledge level, and overall rating of the training. Thematic analysis was used to code comments and establish themes from two open-ended survey questions.

Results: Significant differences were found by race and ethnicity for all questionnaire responses; each were p < 0.001. Those who reported they had advanced/expert knowledge on the topic were less likely to report the training increased their knowledge, and those who reported their race as White/Caucasian tended to give the training the highest overall rating, as did heterosexuals. Through thematic analysis, participants valued the interactive nature of the training sessions, the use of storytelling, and the safety of the learning environment. Participants' intention to apply their learning indicated they had gained general awareness of bias and settings where it might influence their work.

Conclusions: In an effort to foster a better working and learning environment for those who are underrepresented in the health professions, training was provide that may not have met the expectations of all participants. At the same time, participants who identified as White clearly increased their awareness of bias. Therefore, it is recommended to move away from one-size-fits-all unconscious bias training and develop a robust training continuum to provide ongoing advancement for diverse audiences.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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