Pilot test of a multicomponent implementation strategy for equity in advanced heart failure allocation.

Advanced heart failure (AHF) therapy allocation is vulnerable to bias related to subjective assessments and poor group dynamics. Our objective was to determine whether an implementation strategy for AHF team members could feasibly contribute to organizational and culture change supporting equity in AHF allocation. Using a pretest-posttest design, the strategy included an 8-week multicomponent training on bias reduction, standardized numerical social assessments, and enhanced group dynamics at an AHF center. Evaluations of organizational and cultural changes included pretest-posttest AHF team member surveys, transcripts of AHF meetings to assess group dynamics using a standardized scoring system, and posttest interviews guided by a framework for implementing a complex strategy. Results were analyzed with qualitative descriptive methods and Brunner-Munzel tests for relative effect (RE, RE >0.5 signals posttest improvement). The majority of survey metrics revealed potential benefit with RE >0.5. REs were >0.5 for 5 of 6 group dynamics metrics. Themes for implementation included (1) promoting equitable distribution of scarce resources, (2) requiring a change in team members' time investment to correct bias and change the meeting structure, (3) slowing and then accelerating the allocation process, and (4) adaptable beyond AHF and reinforceable with semi-annual trainings. An implementation strategy for AHF equity demonstrated the feasibility for organizational and culture changes.

The Influence of Messaging on Perceptions of Careers in Veterinary Medicine: Do Gender Stereotypes Matter?

The veterinary medical workforce is increasingly female; occupational feminization often transfers stereotypes associated with the predominant gender onto the profession. It is unknown whether within veterinary medicine a feminized public image is a possible contributor to the reduction in male applicants to training programs. The influence of stereotypically gendered messaging on how male and female undergraduate students perceive veterinary medicine was investigated in 482 undergraduate students enrolled in five introductory or second-level biology courses. Two short videos introducing the field of veterinary medicine were developed with imagery and language selected to emphasize either stereotypic feminine (communal) or masculine (agentic) aspects of the field. Participant groups were randomly assigned one of the two videos (feminine/communal or masculine/agentic) or no video (no exposure). An outcome survey elicited impressions of the field of veterinary medicine and gathered demographic data. There was a significant linear trend of condition on perception of the profession as feminine or masculine and on perception of the activities of a veterinarian as feminine/communal or masculine/agentic. Female participants were significantly more likely to agree that someone of their gender would be valued in the profession. Male participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy scores for performing the tasks of a veterinarian when they viewed the feminine stereotype video. These results demonstrate that gendered perceptions of the field can be manipulated. Intentional gendered messaging should be further explored as one strategy to broaden the talent pool in the workforce by attracting men back to the field.

"This happens all the time": a Qualitative Study of General Internists' Experiences with Discriminatory Patients.

BACKGROUND: Workplace discrimination negatively affects physicians of color personally and professionally. Although the occurrence of discrimination from patients has been visible in social media, popular press, and personal essays, scant research exists on patients as a source of discrimination directed at physicians of color. OBJECTIVE: To explore practicing general internists' experiences observing or interacting with patients exhibiting discriminatory behavior directed at physicians of color. DESIGN: A qualitative study with in-depth, semi-structured, one-on-one telephone interviews conducted and recorded between May and September 2019. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 24 general internists practicing at 12 academic health centers in the USA: 14 self-identified as White and 10 as a physician of color, which included Asian, Black, Native American, and self-identified other race. APPROACH: Four coders analyzed the transcribed and verified interview text; thematic analysis was used to inductively identify cohesive themes and subthemes. KEY RESULTS: Analyses revealed four major themes: (1) assumption that a legitimate doctor is White, male, and able-bodied; (2) legacy of the Black experience; (3) working through the struggle of discrimination; and (4) ethical dilemma of providing care to discriminatory patients. In addition to discrimination from patients based on a physician's race or ethnicity, participants described experiencing or observing discrimination based on a physician's gender and disability status. Participants generally expressed a need for greater support from colleagues and more guidance from institutional policies. CONCLUSIONS: General internists practicing in academic settings reported observing or experiencing discrimination from patients based on the physician's race, ethnicity, gender (or their intersection), and disability status and the ethical dilemma of providing care to such patients. These results contribute to growing evidence of the need for institutions to better support an increasingly diverse physician workforce with policies and specific guidance to help physicians respond to discrimination from patients while still providing quality care.

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers' evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers' ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers "translated" a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.

Why is John More Likely to Become Department Chair Than Jennifer?

This article reviews some of our research on how gender stereotypes and their accompanying assumptions and expectations can influence the careers of male and female physicians and scientists in a myriad of subtle ways. Although stereotype-based cognitive biases may be invisible and unintentional, they nevertheless shape the experiences of women in academic medicine in ways that frequently constrain their opportunities. We present research on the following: 1) subtle differences in the evaluation of male and female medical students as revealed through text analysis of written evaluations at a critical career juncture, 2) how cultural assumptions about the way men and women should and should not behave influence medical residents' experiences as leaders, and 3) how approaching gender bias among faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering as a remedial habit can be successful in changing individual behaviors and in improving department climate.

Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities.

Although the medical profession strives for equal treatment of all patients, disparities in health care are prevalent. Cultural stereotypes may not be consciously endorsed, but their mere existence influences how information about an individual is processed and leads to unintended biases in decision-making, so called "implicit bias". All of society is susceptible to these biases, including physicians. Research suggests that implicit bias may contribute to health care disparities by shaping physician behavior and producing differences in medical treatment along the lines of race, ethnicity, gender or other characteristics. We review the origins of implicit bias, cite research documenting the existence of implicit bias among physicians, and describe studies that demonstrate implicit bias in clinical decision-making. We then present the bias-reducing strategies of consciously taking patients' perspectives and intentionally focusing on individual patients' information apart from their social group. We conclude that the contribution of implicit bias to health care disparities could decrease if all physicians acknowledged their susceptibility to it, and deliberately practiced perspective-taking and individuation when providing patient care. We further conclude that increasing the number of African American/Black physicians could reduce the impact of implicit bias on health care disparities because they exhibit significantly less implicit race bias.

Effect of a Workshop to Break the Bias Habit for Internal Medicine Faculty: A Multisite Cluster Randomized Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: Recognition that cultural stereotypes can unintentionally perpetuate inequities throughout academic medicine has led to calls for "implicit bias training" without strong evidence to support these recommendations and some evidence of potential harm. The authors sought to determine the effectiveness of a single 3-hour workshop in helping department of medicine faculty overcome implicit stereotype-based bias and in improving the climate in the working environment. METHOD: A multisite cluster randomized controlled study (October 2017 to April 2021) with clustering at the level of divisions within departments and participant-level analysis of survey responses involved 8,657 faculty in 204 divisions in 19 departments of medicine: 4,424 in the intervention group (1,526 attended a workshop) and 4,233 in the control group. Online surveys at baseline (3,764/8,657 = 43.48% response rate) and 3 months after the workshop (2,962/7,715 = 38.39% response rate) assessed bias awareness, bias-reducing intentional behavioral change, and perceptions of division climate. RESULTS: At 3 months, faculty in the intervention vs control divisions showed greater increases in awareness of personal bias vulnerability ( b = 0.190 [95% CI, 0.031 to 0.349], P = .02), bias reduction self-efficacy ( b = 0.097 [95% CI, 0.010 to 0.184], P = .03), and taking action to reduce bias ( b = 0.113 [95% CI, 0.007 to 0.219], P = .04). The workshop had no effect on climate or burnout, but slightly increased perceptions of respectful division meetings ( b = 0.072 [95% CI, 0.0003 to 0.143], P = .049). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study should give confidence to those designing prodiversity interventions for faculty in academic medical centers that a single workshop which promotes awareness of stereotype-based implicit bias, explains and labels common bias concepts, and provides evidence-based strategies for participants to practice appears to have no harms and may have significant benefits in empowering faculty to break the bias habit.

Group Dynamics and Allocation of Advanced Heart Failure Therapies-Heart Transplants and Ventricular Assist Devices-By Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Group.

Background US regulatory framework for advanced heart failure therapies (AHFT), ventricular assist devices, and heart transplants, delegate eligibility decisions to multidisciplinary groups at the center level. The subjective nature of decision-making is at risk for racial, ethnic, and gender bias. We sought to determine how group dynamics impact allocation decision-making by patient gender, racial, and ethnic group. Methods and Results We performed a mixed-methods study among 4 AHFT centers. For ≈ 1 month, AHFT meetings were audio recorded. Meeting transcripts were evaluated for group function scores using de Groot Critically Reflective Diagnoses protocol (metrics: challenging groupthink, critical opinion sharing, openness to mistakes, asking/giving feedback, and experimentation; scoring: 1 to 4 [high to low quality]). The relationship between summed group function scores and AHFT allocation was assessed via hierarchical logistic regression with patients nested within meetings nested within centers, and interaction effects of group function score with gender and race, adjusting for patient age and comorbidities. Among 87 patients (24% women, 66% White race) evaluated for AHFT, 57% of women, 38% of men, 44% of White race, and 40% of patients of color were allocated to AHFT. The interaction between group function score and allocation by patient gender was statistically significant (P=0.035); as group function scores improved, the probability of AHFT allocation increased for women and decreased for men, a pattern that was similar irrespective of racial and ethnic groups. Conclusions Women evaluated for AHFT were more likely to receive AHFT when group decision-making processes were of higher quality. Further investigation is needed to promote routine high-quality group decision-making and reduce known disparities in AHFT allocation.

A novel approach for assessing bias during team-based clinical decision-making.

Many clinical processes include multidisciplinary group decision-making, yet few methods exist to evaluate the presence of implicit bias during this collective process. Implicit bias negatively impacts the equitable delivery of evidence-based interventions and ultimately patient outcomes. Since implicit bias can be difficult to assess, novel approaches are required to detect and analyze this elusive phenomenon. In this paper, we describe how the de Groot Critically Reflective Diagnoses Protocol (DCRDP) can be used as a data analysis tool to evaluate group dynamics as an essential foundation for exploring how interactions can bias collective clinical decision-making. The DCRDP includes 6 distinct criteria: challenging groupthink, critical opinion sharing, research utilization, openness to mistakes, asking and giving feedback, and experimentation. Based on the strength and frequency of codes in the form of exemplar quotes, each criterion was given a numerical score of 1-4 with 1 representing teams that are interactive, reflective, higher functioning, and more equitable. When applied as a coding scheme to transcripts of recorded decision-making meetings, the DCRDP was revealed as a practical tool for examining group decision-making bias. It can be adapted to a variety of clinical, educational, and other professional settings as an impetus for recognizing the presence of team-based bias, engaging in reflexivity, informing the design and testing of implementation strategies, and monitoring long-term outcomes to promote more equitable decision-making processes in healthcare.

Next Steps: Advocating for Women in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Orthopaedic surgery is the least diverse of all medical specialties, by both sex and race. Diversity among orthopaedic trainees is the lowest in medicine, and growth in percentage representation is the lowest of all surgical subspecialties. Women comprise only 6% of orthopaedic surgeons and 16% of orthopaedic surgery trainees. This extreme lack of diversity in orthopaedics limits creative problem-solving and the potential of our profession. Women in orthopaedics encounter sexual harassment, overt discrimination, and implicit bias, which create barriers to training, career satisfaction, and success. Women are underrepresented in leadership positions, perpetuating the lack of diversity through poor visibility to potential candidates, which impedes recruitment. Correction will require a concerted effort, as acknowledged by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons leadership who included a goal and plan to increase diversity in the 2019 to 2023 Strategic Plan. Recommended initiatives include support for pipeline programs that increase diversity of the candidate pool; sexual harassment and implicit bias acknowledgement, education, and corrective action; and the active sponsorship of qualified, capable women by organizational leaders. To follow, women will lend insight from their diverse viewpoints to research questions, practice problems, and clinical conundrums of our specialty, augmenting the profession and improving patient outcomes.

Mini-Residencies to Improve Care for Women Veterans: A Decade of Re-Educating Veterans Health Administration Primary Care Providers.

Background: Many primary care providers (PCPs) in the Veterans Health Administration need updated clinical training in women's health. The objective was to design, implement, and evaluate a training program to increase participants' comfort with and provision of care to women Veterans, and foster practice changes in women's health care at their local institutions. Methods: The Women's Health Mini-Residency was developed as a multi-day training program, based on principles of adult learning, wherein knowledge gleaned through didactic presentations was solidified during small-group case study discussions and further enhanced by hands-on training and creation of a facility-specific action plan to improve women Veterans' care. Pre, post, and 6-month surveys assessed attendees' comfort with and provision of care to women. The 6-month survey also queried changes in practice, promulgation of program content, and action plan progress. Results: From 2008 to 2019, 2912 PCPs attended 26 programs. A total of 2423 (83.2%) completed pretraining and 2324 (79.3%) completed post-training surveys. The 6-month survey was sent to the 645 attendees from the first 14 programs; 297 (46.1%) responded. Comparison of pre-post responses indicated significant gains in comfort managing all 19 content areas. Six-month data showed some degradation, but comfort remained significantly improved from baseline. At 6 months, participants also reported increases in providing care to women, including performing more breast and pelvic examinations, dissemination of program content to colleagues, and progress on action plans. Conclusions: This interactive program appears to have been successful in improving PCPs' comfort in providing care for women Veterans and empowering them to implement institutional change.

Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men.

Background: Female scientists, who are more likely than their male counterparts to study women and report findings by sex/gender, fare worse in the article peer review process. It is unknown whether the gender of research participants influences the recommendation to publish an article describing the study. Materials and Methods: Reviewers were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three versions of an article abstract describing a clinical study conducted in men, women, or individuals. Reviewers assessed the study's scientific rigor, its level of contribution to medical science, and whether they would recommend publishing the full article. Responses were analyzed with logistic regression controlling for reviewer background variables, including sex and experience level. Results: There was no significant difference in perceived research rigor by abstract condition; contribution to medical science was perceived to be greater for research conducted in women than men (odds ratio = 1.7; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, reviewers were almost twice as likely to recommend publication for research conducted in men than the same research conducted in women (predicted probability 0.606 vs. 0.322; p = 0.000). Conclusions: These results are consistent with abundant data from multiple sources showing a lower societal value placed on women than men. Because female investigators are more likely than male investigators to study women, our findings suggest a previously unrecognized bias that could contribute to gender asymmetries in the publication outcomes of peer review. This pro-male publication bias could be an additional barrier to leadership attainment for women in academic medicine and the advancement of women's health.

Videoconferencing Etiquette: Promoting Gender Equity During Virtual Meetings.

Considerable evidence has demonstrated that gender influences interactions during in-person meetings, most commonly, negatively impacting women and persons of color. Pervasive gender stereotypes about roles that were (and are) occupied by men and women lead to implicit assumptions about competency in said roles. For example, women may receive more negative verbal interruptions or nonverbal cues that undermine their authority as a leader, a stereotypically male-typed role. The coronavirus pandemic has led to the rapid rise in videoconferencing in professional interactions; however, little is known about videoconferencing etiquette and how gender bias permeates to this new setting. Although there are many benefits to the use of this technology, it has the potential to reinforce gender bias rooted in cultural and societal norms, gender stereotypes, and traditional gender roles. The well-documented implicit biases that have been shown to favor men over women during in-person meetings may translate to further gender gaps in leadership during virtual meetings. It is also possible that videoconferencing could be used to reduce gender bias, but until we have research to shine a light on this topic, this article provides 10 tips for promoting gender equity during virtual meetings.

Engaging faculty in a workshop intervention on overcoming the influence of implicit bias.

INTRODUCTION: To study the effectiveness of any educational intervention for faculty requires first that they attend the training. Using attendance as a measure of faculty engagement, this study examined factors associated with the percentage of faculty in divisions of departments of medicine who attended a workshop as part of a multisite study. METHODS: Between October 2018 and March 2020, 1675 of 4767 faculty in 120 divisions of 14 departments of medicine attended a 3-hour in-person workshop as part of the Bias Reduction in Internal Medicine (BRIM) initiative. This paper describes the workshop development and study design. The number of faculty per division ranged from 5 to 296. Attendance rates varied from 2.7% to 90.1%. Taking a quality improvement approach, the study team brainstormed factors potentially related to variations in workshop attendance, constructed several division- and institution-level variables, and assessed the significance of factors on workshop attendance with hierarchical linear models. RESULTS: The following were positively associated with workshop attendance rate: the division head attended the workshop, the BRIM principal investigator gave Medical Grand Rounds, and the percentage of local workshop presenters who completed training. Workshop attendance rates fell when departments identified more than five on-site study leaders. CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with higher workshop attendance may have increased the perceived status and value of attending the workshop, leading faculty to choose the workshop over other competing demands. For future investigators studying educational interventions that require participation of faculty in clinical departments at multiple sites, this work offers several valuable lessons.