The nature and validity of implicit bias training for health care providers and trainees: A systematic review.

The number of health care educational institutions/organizations adopting implicit bias training is growing. Our systematic review of 77 studies (published 1 January 2003 through 21 September 2022) investigated how implicit bias training in health care is designed/delivered and whether gaps in knowledge translation compromised the reliability and validity of the training. The primary training target was race/ethnicity (49.3%); trainings commonly lack specificity on addressing implicit prejudice or stereotyping (67.5%). They involved a combination of hands-on and didactic approaches, lasting an average of 343.15 min, often delivered in a single day (53.2%). Trainings also exhibit translational gaps, diverging from current literature (10 to 67.5%), and lack internal (99.9%), face (93.5%), and external (100%) validity. Implicit bias trainings in health care are characterized by bias in methodological quality and translational gaps, potentially compromising their impacts.

Racial disparities in cancer genetic counseling encounters: study protocol for investigating patient-genetic counselor communication in the naturalistic clinical setting using a convergent mixed methods design.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades of effort to reduce racial cancer disparities, Black people continue to die at higher rates from cancer than any other U.S. racial group. Because prevention is a key to the cost-effective and long-term control of cancer, the potential for cancer genetic counseling to play a central role in reducing racial cancer disparities is high. However, the benefits of genetic counseling are not equitable across race. Only 2% of genetic counselors self-identify as Black/African American, so most genetic counseling encounters with Black patients are racially discordant. Patients in racially discordant medical interactions tend to have poorer quality patient-provider communication and receive suboptimal clinical recommendations. One major factor that contributes to these healthcare disparities is racial bias. Drawing on findings from prior research, we hypothesize that genetic counselor providers' implicit racial prejudice will be associated negatively with the quality of patient-provider communication, while providers' explicit negative racial stereotypes will be associated negatively with the comprehensiveness of clinical discussions of cancer risk and genetic testing for Black (vs. White) patients. METHODS: Using a convergent mixed methods research design, we will collect data from at least 15 genetic counseling providers, from two different institutions, and their 220 patients (approximately equal number of Black and White patients per provider) whose appointments are for a hereditary cancer condition. The data sources will include two provider surveys, two patient surveys, video- and/or audio-recordings of genetic counseling encounters, and medical chart reviews. The recorded cancer genetic counseling in-person and telehealth encounters will be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to assess the quality of patient-provider communication and the comprehensiveness of clinical discussion. Those data will be linked to pre- and post-encounter survey data and data from medical chart reviews to test our hypotheses. DISCUSSION: Findings from this multi-site study will highlight specific aspects of cancer genetic counseling encounters (patient-provider communication and clinical recommendations) that are directly associated with patient-centered outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, trust, genetic testing completion). Patient-provider communication and clinical recommendations are modifiable factors that can be integrated into current genetic counseling training curricula and thus can have immediate impact on genetic counseling training and practice.