Anti-Indigenous bias of medical school applicants: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Structural and interpersonal anti-Indigenous racism is prevalent in Canadian healthcare. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on medical schools to address anti-Indigenous bias in students. We measured the prevalence of interpersonal anti-Indigenous bias among medical school applicants to understand how the medical school selection process selects for or against students with high levels of bias. METHODS: All applicants to a single university in the 2020-2021 admissions cycle were invited to participate. Explicit anti-Indigenous bias was measured using two sliding scale thermometers. The first asked how participants felt about Indigenous people (from 0, indicating 'cold/unfavourable' to 100, indicating 'warm/favourable') and the second asked whether participants preferred white (scored 100) or Indigenous people (scored 0). Participants then completed an implicit association test examining preferences for European or Indigenous faces (negative time latencies suggest preference for European faces). Explicit and implicit anti-Indigenous biases were compared by applicant demographics (including gender and racial identity), application status (offered an interview, offered admission, accepted a position), and compared to undergraduate medical and mathematics students. RESULTS: There were 595 applicant respondents (32.4% response rate, 64.2% cisgender women, 55.3% white). Applicants felt warmly toward Indigenous people (median 96 (IQR 80-100)), had no explicit preference for white or Indigenous people (median 50 (IQR 37-55), and had mild implicit preference for European faces (- 0.22 ms (IQR -0.54, 0.08 ms)). There were demographic differences associated with measures of explicit and implicit bias. Applicants who were offered admission had warmer feelings toward Indigenous people and greater preference for Indigenous people compared to those were not successful. CONCLUSIONS: Medical school applicants did not have strong interpersonal explicit and implicit anti-Indigenous biases. Outlier participants with strong biases were not offered interviews or admission to medical school.

Prevalence and characteristics of anti-Indigenous bias among Albertan physicians: a cross-sectional survey and framework analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Recent deaths of Indigenous patients in the Canadian healthcare system have been attributed to structural and interpersonal racism. Experiences of interpersonal racism by Indigenous physicians and patients have been well characterised, but the source of this interpersonal bias has not been as well studied. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of explicit and implicit interpersonal anti-Indigenous biases among Albertan physicians. DESIGN AND SETTING: This cross-sectional survey measuring demographic information and explicit and implicit anti-Indigenous biases was distributed in September 2020 to all practising physicians in Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 375 practising physicians with an active medical licence. OUTCOMES: Explicit anti-Indigenous bias, measured by two feeling thermometer methods: participants slid an indicator on a thermometer to indicate their preference for white people (full preference is scored 100) or Indigenous people (full preference, 0), and then participants indicated how favourably they felt toward Indigenous people (100, maximally favourable; 0, maximally unfavourable). Implicit bias was measured using an Indigenous-European implicit association test (negative scores suggest preference for European (white) faces). Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare bias across physician demographics, including intersectional identities of race and gender identity. MAIN RESULTS: Most of the 375 participants were white cisgender women (40.3%; n=151). The median age of participants was 46-50 years. 8.3% of participants felt unfavourably toward Indigenous people (n=32 of 375) and 25.0% preferred white people to Indigenous people (n=32 of 128). Median scores did not differ by gender identity, race or intersectional identities. White cisgender men physicians had the greatest implicit preferences compared with other groups (-0.59 (IQR -0.86 to -0.25); n=53; p<0.001). Free-text responses discussed 'reverse racism' and expressed discomfort with survey questions addressing bias and racism. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit anti-Indigenous bias was present among Albertan physicians. Concerns about 'reverse racism' targeting white people and discomfort discussing racism may act as barriers to addressing these biases. About two-thirds of respondents had implicit anti-Indigenous bias. These results corroborate the validity of patient reports of anti-Indigenous bias in healthcare and emphasise the need for effective intervention.