4.6 Review

Implicit biases in healthcare: implications and future directions for gynecologic oncology

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.12.267

Keywords

cancer health disparities; gynecologic oncology; implicit bias

Funding

  1. Merck Foundation Alliance to Advanced Patient-Centered Cancer Care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Health disparities exist among patients with gynecologic cancers, with the greatest differences observed among racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Implicit biases in healthcare may unconsciously perpetuate bias towards racially and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, leading to communication and medical judgment differences. This narrative review explores implicit bias in healthcare, specifically among oncology professionals, and identifies future research areas in gynecologic oncology.
Health disparities have been found among patients with gynecologic cancers, with the greatest differences arising among groups based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors. Although there may be multiple social barriers that can influence health disparities, another potential influence may stem from healthcare system factors that unconsciously perpetuate bias toward patients who are racially and socioeconomically disadvantaged. More recent research suggested that providers hold these implicit biases (automatic and unconscious attitudes) for stigmatized populations with cancer, with emerging evidence for patients with gynecologic cancer. These implicit biases may guide providers' communication and medical judgments, which, in turn, may influence the patient's satisfaction with and trust in the provider. This narrative review consolidated the current research on implicit bias in healthcare, with a specific emphasis on oncology professionals, and identified future areas of research for examining and changing implicit biases in the field of gynecologic oncology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available