↓ Skip to main content

Racial/Gender Biases in Student Clinical Decision-Making: a Mixed-Method Study of Medical School Attributes Associated with Lower Incidence of Biases

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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.
Title
Racial/Gender Biases in Student Clinical Decision-Making: a Mixed-Method Study of Medical School Attributes Associated with Lower Incidence of Biases
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4543-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert L. Williams, Cirila Estela Vasquez, Christina M. Getrich, Miria Kano, Blake Boursaw, Crystal Krabbenhoft, Andrew L. Sussman

Abstract

Accumulating evidence suggests that clinician racial/gender decision-making biases in some instances contribute to health disparities. Previous work has produced evidence of such biases in medical students. To identify contextual attributes in medical schools associated on average with low levels of racial/gender clinical decision-making biases. A mixed-method design using comparison case studies of 15 medical schools selected based on results of a previous survey of student decision-making bias: 7 schools whose students collectively had, and 8 schools whose students had not shown evidence of such biases. Purposively sampled faculty, staff, underrepresented minority medical students, and clinical-level medical students at each school. Quantitative descriptive data and qualitative interview and focus group data assessing 32 school attributes theorized in the literature to be associated with formation of decision-making and biases. We used a mixed-method analytic design with standard qualitative analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Across the 15 schools, a total of 104 faculty, administrators and staff and 21 students participated in individual interviews, and 196 students participated in 29 focus groups. While no single attribute or group of attributes distinguished the two clusters of schools, analysis showed some contextual attributes were seen more commonly in schools whose students had not demonstrated biases: longitudinal reflective small group sessions; non-accusatory approach to training in diversity; longitudinal, integrated diversity curriculum; admissions priorities and action steps toward a diverse student body; and school service orientation to the community. We identified several potentially modifiable elements of the training environment that are more common in schools whose students do not show evidence of racial and gender biases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Student > Master 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Psychology 7 7%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 36 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,384,308
of 25,284,710 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,753
of 8,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,501
of 333,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#38
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,284,710 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 333,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.