↓ Skip to main content

Ethnic bias and clinical decision-making among New Zealand medical students: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
reddit
3 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Ethnic bias and clinical decision-making among New Zealand medical students: an observational study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1120-7
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Health professional racial/ethnic bias may impact on clinical decision-making and contribute to subsequent ethnic health inequities. However, limited research has been undertaken among medical students. This paper presents findings from the Bias and Decision-Making in Medicine (BDMM) study, which sought to examine ethnic bias (Māori (indigenous peoples) compared with New Zealand European) among medical students and associations with clinical decision-making. All final year New Zealand (NZ) medical students in 2014 and 2015 (n = 888) were invited to participate in a cross-sectional online study. Key components included: two chronic disease vignettes (cardiovascular disease (CVD) and depression) with randomized patient ethnicity (Māori or NZ European) and questions on patient management; implicit bias measures (an ethnicity preference Implicit Association Test (IAT) and an ethnicity and compliant patient IAT); and, explicit ethnic bias questions. Associations between ethnic bias and clinical decision-making responses to vignettes were tested using linear regression. Three hundred and two students participated (34% response rate). Implicit and explicit ethnic bias favoring NZ Europeans was apparent among medical students. In the CVD vignette, no significant differences in clinical decision-making by patient ethnicity were observed. There were also no differential associations by patient ethnicity between any measures of ethnic bias (implicit or explicit) and patient management responses in the CVD vignette. In the depression vignette, some differences in the ranking of recommended treatment options were observed by patient ethnicity and explicit preference for NZ Europeans was associated with increased reporting that NZ European patients would benefit from treatment but not Māori (slope difference 0.34, 95% CI 0.08, 0.60; p = 0.011), although this was the only significant finding in these analyses. NZ medical students demonstrated ethnic bias, although overall this was not associated with clinical decision-making. This study both adds to the small body of literature internationally on racial/ethnic bias among medical students and provides relevant and important information for medical education on indigenous health and ethnic health inequities in New Zealand.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 172 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Master 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Researcher 10 6%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 65 38%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 21%
Psychology 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 68 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2025.
All research outputs
#21,540,690
of 32,257,765 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#3,269
of 5,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,456
of 479,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#42
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,257,765 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 479,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.