Is physician implicit bias associated with differences in care by patient race for metastatic cancer-related pain?

RATIONALE: Implicit racial bias affects many human interactions including patient-physician encounters. Its impact, however, varies between studies. We assessed the effects of physician implicit, racial bias on their management of cancer-related pain using a randomized field experiment. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of a randomized field experiment between 2012 and 2016 with 96 primary care physicians and oncologists using unannounced, Black and White standardized patients (SPs)who reported uncontrolled bone pain from metastatic lung cancer. We assessed implicit bias using a pain-adaptation of the race Implicit Association Test. We assessed clinical care by reviewing medical records and prescriptions, and we assessed communication from coded transcripts and covert audiotapes of the unannounced standardized patient office visits. We assessed effects of interactions of physicians' implicit bias and SP race with clinical care and communication outcomes. We conducted a slopes analysis to examine the nature of significant interactions. RESULTS: As hypothesized, physicians with greater implicit bias provided lower quality care to Black SPs, including fewer renewals for an indicated opioid prescription and less patient-centered pain communication, but similar routine pain assessment. In contrast to our other hypotheses, physician implicit bias did not interact with SP race for prognostic communication or verbal dominance. Analysis of the slopes for the cross-over interactions showed that greater physician bias was manifested by more frequent opioid prescribing and greater discussion of pain for White SPs and slightly less frequent prescribing and pain talk for Black SPs with the opposite effect among physicians with lower implicit bias. Findings are limited by use of an unvalidated, pain-adapted IAT. CONCLUSION: Using SP methodology, physicians' implicit bias was associated with clinically meaningful, racial differences in management of uncontrolled pain related to metastatic lung cancer. There is favorable treatment of White or Black SPs, depending on the level of implicit bias.

The African American experience in reproductive medicine: provider, patient, and pipeline perspectives.

The goal of this Views and Reviews is to let colleagues and leaders well versed in the African American experience in reproductive medicine address the problems of racism affecting our trainees and patients and, more significantly, propose solutions. The areas in reproductive medicine that will be explored from the African American perspective include the pipeline of providers, health disparities, and access to infertility treatment.

The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.

Acknowledging the Burdens of 'Blackness'.

The novel coronavirus of 2019 exposed, in an undeniable way, the severity of racial inequities in America's healthcare system. As the urgency of the pandemic grew, administrators, clinicians, and ethicists became concerned with upholding the ethical principle of "most lives saved" by re-visiting crisis standards of care and triage protocols. Yet a colorblind, race-neutral approach to "most lives saved" is inherently inequitable because it reflects the normality and invisibility of 'whiteness' while simultaneously disregarding the burdens of 'Blackness'. As written, the crisis standards of care (CSC) adopted by States are racist policies because they contribute to a history that treats Black Americans are inherently less than. This paper will unpack the idealized fairness and equity pursued by CSC, while also considering the use of modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) as a measure of objective equality in the context of a healthcare system that is built on systemic racism and the potential dangers this can have on Black Americans with COVID-19.

When Scarcity Meets Disparity: "Resources Allocation and COVID-19 Patients with Diabetes".

The COVID-19 pandemic raised distinct challenges in the field of scarce resource allocation, a long-standing area of inquiry in the field of bioethics. Policymakers and states developed crisis guidelines for ventilator triage that incorporated such factors as immediate prognosis, long-term life expectancy, and current stage of life. Often these depend upon existing risk factors for severe illness, including diabetes. However, these algorithms generally failed to account for the underlying structural biases, including systematic racism and economic disparity, that rendered some patients more vulnerable to these conditions. This paper discusses this unique ethical challenge in resource allocation through the lens of care for patients with severe COVID-19 and diabetes.