MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206128347 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-39615/v2

Mitigating Implicit Bias in Patient-Clinician Communication in Clinical Encounters: Protocol from the COmmuNity-engaged SimULation Training (CONSULT) Trial

2020· preprint· en· W4206128347 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Tjia, Michele P. Pugnaire, Joanne Calista, Nancy Esparza, Olga Valdman, María Muñoz García, Majid Yazdani, Janet Fraser Hale, Jill Terrien, Ethan Eisdorfer, Valerie Zolezzi-Wyndham, Germán Chiriboga, Geraldine Puerto, Elizabeth C. Dykhouse, Stacy Potts, Andriana Foiles Sifuentes, Sylvia Stanhope, Jeroan J. Allison, Vennesa Duodu, Janice Sabin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Training (meteorology)Simulation trainingClinical trialPsychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicineAlternative medicineSimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background : Healthcare professionals have negative implicit biases toward minority and poor patients. Few communication skills interventions target implicit bias as a factor contributing to disparities in health outcomes. We report the protocol from the COmmuNity-engaged SimULation Training for Blood Pressure Control (CONSULT-BP), a trial evaluating a novel intervention targeting graduate medical and nursing trainees designed to mitigate the effects of implicit bias in clinical encounters. The CONSULT-BP intervention combines knowledge acquisition, bias awareness, and practice of bias mitigating skills in simulation-based communication encounters with racially/ethnically diverse standardized patients. The trial evaluates the effect of this 3-part program on patient BP outcomes, self-reported patient medication adherence, patient-reported quality of provider communication, and trainee bias awareness.Methods : We are conducting a cluster randomized trial of the intervention among cohorts of internal medicine (IM), family medicine (FM), and doctorate nurse practitioner (DNP) trainees at a single academic medical center. We are enrolling entire specialty cohorts of IM, FM, and NP trainees over a 3-year period, with each academic year constituting an intervention cycle. There are 3 cycles of implementation corresponding to 3 sequential academic years. Within each academic year, we randomize training times to 1 of 5 start dates using a stepped wedge design. The stepped wedge design compares outcomes within training clusters before and after the intervention, as well as across exposed and unexposed clusters. Primary outcome of blood pressure control is measured at the patient-level for patients clustered within trainees. Eligible patients for outcomes analysis are: English-speaking; non-White racial/ethnic minority; Medicaid recipient (regardless of race/ethnicity); hypertension; not have pregnancy, dementia, schizophrenia, bipolar illness, or other serious comorbidities that would interfere with hypertension self-control; not enrolled in hospice. Secondary outcomes include trainee bias awareness. A unique feature of this trial is the engagement of academic and community stakeholders to design, pilot test and implement a training program addressing healthcare.Discussion: Equipping clinicians with skills to mitigate implicit bias in clinical encounters is crucial to addressing persistent disparities in healthcare outcomes. Our novel, integrated approach may improve patient outcomes.Trial registration : NCT03375918Protocol version : 2.0 (October 16, 2020)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.778
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→