Louis A Penner1, John F Dovidio2, Richard Gonzalez2, Terrance L Albrecht2, Robert Chapman2, Tanina Foster2, Felicity W K Harper2, Nao Hagiwara2, Lauren M Hamel2, Anthony F Shields2, Shirish Gadgeel2, Michael S Simon2, Jennifer J Griggs2, Susan Eggly2. 1. Louis A. Penner, Terrance L. Albrecht, Tanina Foster, Felicity W.K. Harper, Lauren M. Hamel, Anthony F. Shields, Shirish Gadgeel, Michael S. Simon, and Susan Eggly, Wayne State University; Robert Chapman, Henry Ford Health Care System, Detroit; Richard Gonzalez and Jennifer J. Griggs, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; John F. Dovidio, Yale University, New Haven, CT; and Nao Hagiwara, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. pennerl@karmanos.org. 2. Louis A. Penner, Terrance L. Albrecht, Tanina Foster, Felicity W.K. Harper, Lauren M. Hamel, Anthony F. Shields, Shirish Gadgeel, Michael S. Simon, and Susan Eggly, Wayne State University; Robert Chapman, Henry Ford Health Care System, Detroit; Richard Gonzalez and Jennifer J. Griggs, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; John F. Dovidio, Yale University, New Haven, CT; and Nao Hagiwara, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Health providers' implicit racial bias negatively affects communication and patient reactions to many medical interactions. However, its effects on racially discordant oncology interactions are largely unknown. Thus, we examined whether oncologist implicit racial bias has similar effects in oncology interactions. We further investigated whether oncologist implicit bias negatively affects patients' perceptions of recommended treatments (i.e., degree of confidence, expected difficulty). We predicted oncologist implicit bias would negatively affect communication, patient reactions to interactions, and, indirectly, patient perceptions of recommended treatments. METHODS: Participants were 18 non-black medical oncologists and 112 black patients. Oncologists completed an implicit racial bias measure several weeks before video-recorded treatment discussions with new patients. Observers rated oncologist communication and recorded interaction length of time and amount of time oncologists and patients spoke. Following interactions, patients answered questions about oncologists' patient-centeredness and difficulty remembering contents of the interaction, distress, trust, and treatment perceptions. RESULTS: As predicted, oncologists higher in implicit racial bias had shorter interactions, and patients and observers rated these oncologists' communication as less patient-centered and supportive. Higher implicit bias also was associated with more patient difficulty remembering contents of the interaction. In addition, oncologist implicit bias indirectly predicted less patient confidence in recommended treatments, and greater perceived difficulty completing them, through its impact on oncologists' communication (as rated by both patients and observers). CONCLUSION: Oncologist implicit racial bias is negatively associated with oncologist communication, patients' reactions to racially discordant oncology interactions, and patient perceptions of recommended treatments. These perceptions could subsequently directly affect patient-treatment decisions. Thus, implicit racial bias is a likely source of racial treatment disparities and must be addressed in oncology training and practice.
PURPOSE: Health providers' implicit racial bias negatively affects communication and patient reactions to many medical interactions. However, its effects on racially discordant oncology interactions are largely unknown. Thus, we examined whether oncologist implicit racial bias has similar effects in oncology interactions. We further investigated whether oncologist implicit bias negatively affects patients' perceptions of recommended treatments (i.e., degree of confidence, expected difficulty). We predicted oncologist implicit bias would negatively affect communication, patient reactions to interactions, and, indirectly, patient perceptions of recommended treatments. METHODS:Participants were 18 non-black medical oncologists and 112 black patients. Oncologists completed an implicit racial bias measure several weeks before video-recorded treatment discussions with new patients. Observers rated oncologist communication and recorded interaction length of time and amount of time oncologists and patients spoke. Following interactions, patients answered questions about oncologists' patient-centeredness and difficulty remembering contents of the interaction, distress, trust, and treatment perceptions. RESULTS: As predicted, oncologists higher in implicit racial bias had shorter interactions, and patients and observers rated these oncologists' communication as less patient-centered and supportive. Higher implicit bias also was associated with more patient difficulty remembering contents of the interaction. In addition, oncologist implicit bias indirectly predicted less patient confidence in recommended treatments, and greater perceived difficulty completing them, through its impact on oncologists' communication (as rated by both patients and observers). CONCLUSION: Oncologist implicit racial bias is negatively associated with oncologist communication, patients' reactions to racially discordant oncology interactions, and patient perceptions of recommended treatments. These perceptions could subsequently directly affect patient-treatment decisions. Thus, implicit racial bias is a likely source of racial treatment disparities and must be addressed in oncology training and practice.
Authors: Louis A Penner; John F Dovidio; Tessa V West; Samuel L Gaertner; Terrance L Albrecht; Rhonda K Dailey; Tsveti Markova Journal: J Exp Soc Psychol Date: 2010-03-01
Authors: Jennifer J Griggs; Eva Culakova; Melony E S Sorbero; Marek S Poniewierski; Debra A Wolff; Jeffrey Crawford; David C Dale; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leslie R M Hausmann; Larissa Myaskovsky; Christian Niyonkuru; Michelle L Oyster; Galen E Switzer; Kelly H Burkitt; Michael J Fine; Shasha Gao; Michael L Boninger Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Nicole E Rich; Caitlin Hester; Mobolaji Odewole; Caitlin C Murphy; Neehar D Parikh; Jorge A Marrero; Adam C Yopp; Amit G Singal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Eudocia Q Lee; Ugonma N Chukwueke; Shawn L Hervey-Jumper; John F de Groot; Jose Pablo Leone; Terri S Armstrong; Susan M Chang; David Arons; Kathy Oliver; Kay Verble; Al Musella; Nicole Willmarth; Brian M Alexander; Amanda Bates; Lisa Doherty; Evanthia Galanis; Sarah Gaffey; Thomas Halkin; Bret E Friday; Maryam Fouladi; Nancy U Lin; David Macdonald; Minesh P Mehta; Marta Penas-Prado; Michael A Vogelbaum; Solmaz Sahebjam; David Sandak; Martin van den Bent; Michael Weller; David A Reardon; Patrick Y Wen Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Susan Eggly; Lauren M Hamel; Tanina S Foster; Terrance L Albrecht; Robert Chapman; Felicity W K Harper; Hayley Thompson; Jennifer J Griggs; Richard Gonzalez; Lisa Berry-Bobovski; Rifky Tkatch; Michael Simon; Anthony Shields; Shirish Gadgeel; Randa Loutfi; Haythem Ali; Ira Wollner; Louis A Penner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-12-27
Authors: Louis A Penner; Felicity W K Harper; John F Dovidio; Terrance L Albrecht; Lauren M Hamel; Nicole Senft; Susan Eggly Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Ivuoma N Onyeador; Natalie M Wittlin; Sara E Burke; John F Dovidio; Sylvia P Perry; Rachel R Hardeman; Liselotte N Dyrbye; Jeph Herrin; Sean M Phelan; Michelle van Ryn Journal: Psychol Sci Date: 2019-11-19