Cargando…

Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Cognitive and implicit biases negatively impact clinicians’ decision-making capacity and can have devastating consequences for safe, effective, and equitable healthcare provision. Internationally, health care clinicians play a critical role in identifying and overcoming these biases. To...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thompson, John, Bujalka, Helena, McKeever, Stephen, Lipscomb, Adrienne, Moore, Sonya, Hill, Nicole, Kinney, Sharon, Cham, Kwang Meng, Martin, Joanne, Bowers, Patrick, Gerdtz, Marie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10280953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37340395
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04371-5
_version_ 1785060912228466688
author Thompson, John
Bujalka, Helena
McKeever, Stephen
Lipscomb, Adrienne
Moore, Sonya
Hill, Nicole
Kinney, Sharon
Cham, Kwang Meng
Martin, Joanne
Bowers, Patrick
Gerdtz, Marie
author_facet Thompson, John
Bujalka, Helena
McKeever, Stephen
Lipscomb, Adrienne
Moore, Sonya
Hill, Nicole
Kinney, Sharon
Cham, Kwang Meng
Martin, Joanne
Bowers, Patrick
Gerdtz, Marie
author_sort Thompson, John
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cognitive and implicit biases negatively impact clinicians’ decision-making capacity and can have devastating consequences for safe, effective, and equitable healthcare provision. Internationally, health care clinicians play a critical role in identifying and overcoming these biases. To be workforce ready, it is important that educators proactively prepare all pre-registration healthcare students for real world practice. However, it is unknown how and to what extent health professional educators incorporate bias training into curricula. To address this gap, this scoping review aims to explore what approaches to teaching cognitive and implicit bias, for entry to practice students, have been studied, and what are the evidence gaps that remain. METHODS: This scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Databases were searched in May 2022 and included CINAHL, Cochrane, JBI, Medline, ERIC, Embase, and PsycINFO. The Population, Concept and Context framework was used to guide keyword and index terms used for search criteria and data extraction by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative studies published in English exploring pedagogical approaches and/or educational techniques, strategies, teaching tools to reduce the influence of bias in health clinicians' decision making were sought to be included in this review. Results are presented numerically and thematically in a table accompanied by a narrative summary. RESULTS: Of the 732 articles identified, 13 met the aim of this study. Most publications originated from the United States (n=9). Educational practice in medicine accounted for most studies (n=8), followed by nursing and midwifery (n=2). A guiding philosophy or conceptual framework for content development was not indicated in most papers. Educational content was mainly provided via face-to-face (lecture/tutorial) delivery (n=10). Reflection was the most common strategy used for assessment of learning (n=6). Cognitive biases were mainly taught in a single session (n=5); implicit biases were taught via a mix of single (n=4) and multiple sessions (n=4). CONCLUSIONS: A range of pedagogical strategies were employed; most commonly, these were face-to-face, class-based activities such as lectures and tutorials. Assessments of student learning were primarily based on tests and personal reflection. There was limited use of real-world settings to educate students about or build skills in biases and their mitigation. There may be a valuable opportunity in exploring approaches to building these skills in the real-world settings that will be the workplaces of our future healthcare workers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04371-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10280953
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102809532023-06-21 Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review Thompson, John Bujalka, Helena McKeever, Stephen Lipscomb, Adrienne Moore, Sonya Hill, Nicole Kinney, Sharon Cham, Kwang Meng Martin, Joanne Bowers, Patrick Gerdtz, Marie BMC Med Educ Research BACKGROUND: Cognitive and implicit biases negatively impact clinicians’ decision-making capacity and can have devastating consequences for safe, effective, and equitable healthcare provision. Internationally, health care clinicians play a critical role in identifying and overcoming these biases. To be workforce ready, it is important that educators proactively prepare all pre-registration healthcare students for real world practice. However, it is unknown how and to what extent health professional educators incorporate bias training into curricula. To address this gap, this scoping review aims to explore what approaches to teaching cognitive and implicit bias, for entry to practice students, have been studied, and what are the evidence gaps that remain. METHODS: This scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Databases were searched in May 2022 and included CINAHL, Cochrane, JBI, Medline, ERIC, Embase, and PsycINFO. The Population, Concept and Context framework was used to guide keyword and index terms used for search criteria and data extraction by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative studies published in English exploring pedagogical approaches and/or educational techniques, strategies, teaching tools to reduce the influence of bias in health clinicians' decision making were sought to be included in this review. Results are presented numerically and thematically in a table accompanied by a narrative summary. RESULTS: Of the 732 articles identified, 13 met the aim of this study. Most publications originated from the United States (n=9). Educational practice in medicine accounted for most studies (n=8), followed by nursing and midwifery (n=2). A guiding philosophy or conceptual framework for content development was not indicated in most papers. Educational content was mainly provided via face-to-face (lecture/tutorial) delivery (n=10). Reflection was the most common strategy used for assessment of learning (n=6). Cognitive biases were mainly taught in a single session (n=5); implicit biases were taught via a mix of single (n=4) and multiple sessions (n=4). CONCLUSIONS: A range of pedagogical strategies were employed; most commonly, these were face-to-face, class-based activities such as lectures and tutorials. Assessments of student learning were primarily based on tests and personal reflection. There was limited use of real-world settings to educate students about or build skills in biases and their mitigation. There may be a valuable opportunity in exploring approaches to building these skills in the real-world settings that will be the workplaces of our future healthcare workers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04371-5. BioMed Central 2023-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10280953/ /pubmed/37340395 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04371-5 Text en © Crown 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Thompson, John
Bujalka, Helena
McKeever, Stephen
Lipscomb, Adrienne
Moore, Sonya
Hill, Nicole
Kinney, Sharon
Cham, Kwang Meng
Martin, Joanne
Bowers, Patrick
Gerdtz, Marie
Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
title Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
title_full Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
title_fullStr Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
title_short Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
title_sort educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10280953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37340395
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04371-5
work_keys_str_mv AT thompsonjohn educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT bujalkahelena educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT mckeeverstephen educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT lipscombadrienne educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT mooresonya educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT hillnicole educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT kinneysharon educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT chamkwangmeng educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT martinjoanne educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT bowerspatrick educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview
AT gerdtzmarie educationalstrategiesinthehealthprofessionstomitigatecognitiveandimplicitbiasimpactondecisionmakingascopingreview