2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalence and characteristics of anti-Indigenous bias among Albertan physicians: a cross-sectional survey and framework analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Recent deaths of Indigenous patients in the Canadian healthcare system have been attributed to structural and interpersonal racism. Experiences of interpersonal racism by Indigenous physicians and patients have been well characterised, but the source of this interpersonal bias has not been as well studied. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of explicit and implicit interpersonal anti-Indigenous biases among Albertan physicians.

          Design and setting

          This cross-sectional survey measuring demographic information and explicit and implicit anti-Indigenous biases was distributed in September 2020 to all practising physicians in Alberta, Canada.

          Participants

          375 practising physicians with an active medical licence.

          Outcomes

          Explicit anti-Indigenous bias, measured by two feeling thermometer methods: participants slid an indicator on a thermometer to indicate their preference for white people (full preference is scored 100) or Indigenous people (full preference, 0), and then participants indicated how favourably they felt toward Indigenous people (100, maximally favourable; 0, maximally unfavourable). Implicit bias was measured using an Indigenous-European implicit association test (negative scores suggest preference for European (white) faces). Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare bias across physician demographics, including intersectional identities of race and gender identity.

          Main results

          Most of the 375 participants were white cisgender women (40.3%; n=151). The median age of participants was 46–50 years. 8.3% of participants felt unfavourably toward Indigenous people (n=32 of 375) and 25.0% preferred white people to Indigenous people (n=32 of 128). Median scores did not differ by gender identity, race or intersectional identities. White cisgender men physicians had the greatest implicit preferences compared with other groups (−0.59 (IQR −0.86 to –0.25); n=53; p<0.001). Free-text responses discussed ‘reverse racism’ and expressed discomfort with survey questions addressing bias and racism.

          Conclusions

          Explicit anti-Indigenous bias was present among Albertan physicians. Concerns about ‘reverse racism’ targeting white people and discomfort discussing racism may act as barriers to addressing these biases. About two-thirds of respondents had implicit anti-Indigenous bias. These results corroborate the validity of patient reports of anti-Indigenous bias in healthcare and emphasise the need for effective intervention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)

              Analogous to checklists of recommendations such as the CONSORT statement (for randomized trials), or the QUORUM statement (for systematic reviews), which are designed to ensure the quality of reports in the medical literature, a checklist of recommendations for authors is being presented by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) in an effort to ensure complete descriptions of Web-based surveys. Papers on Web-based surveys reported according to the CHERRIES statement will give readers a better understanding of the sample (self-)selection and its possible differences from a “representative” sample. It is hoped that author adherence to the checklist will increase the usefulness of such reports.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2023
                22 February 2023
                : 13
                : 2
                : e063178
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Family Medicine , University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Medicine , University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of Community Health Sciences , University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [4 ]Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Shannon M Ruzycki; shannon.ruzycki@ 123456ucalgary.ca
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8122-2910
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-063178
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063178
                9950908
                36813494
                bff2411c-54b2-43e6-b35c-e253b256bc1c
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 24 March 2022
                : 06 February 2023
                Categories
                Public Health
                1506
                1724
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                general medicine (see internal medicine),qualitative research,public health
                Medicine
                general medicine (see internal medicine), qualitative research, public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article