↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

The Effects of Oncologist Implicit Racial Bias in Racially Discordant Oncology Interactions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
25 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
The Effects of Oncologist Implicit Racial Bias in Racially Discordant Oncology Interactions
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 2016
DOI 10.1200/jco.2015.66.3658
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louis A. Penner, John F. Dovidio, Richard Gonzalez, Terrance L. Albrecht, Robert Chapman, Tanina Foster, Felicity W.K. Harper, Nao Hagiwara, Lauren M. Hamel, Anthony F. Shields, Shirish Gadgeel, Michael S. Simon, Jennifer J. Griggs, Susan Eggly

Abstract

Health providers' implicit racial bias negatively affects communication and patient reactions to many medical interactions. However, its effects on racially discordant oncology interactions are largely unknown. Thus, we examined whether oncologist implicit racial bias has similar effects in oncology interactions. We further investigated whether oncologist implicit bias negatively affects patients' perceptions of recommended treatments (i.e., degree of confidence, expected difficulty). We predicted oncologist implicit bias would negatively affect communication, patient reactions to interactions, and, indirectly, patient perceptions of recommended treatments. Participants were 18 non-black medical oncologists and 112 black patients. Oncologists completed an implicit racial bias measure several weeks before video-recorded treatment discussions with new patients. Observers rated oncologist communication and recorded interaction length of time and amount of time oncologists and patients spoke. Following interactions, patients answered questions about oncologists' patient-centeredness and difficulty remembering contents of the interaction, distress, trust, and treatment perceptions. As predicted, oncologists higher in implicit racial bias had shorter interactions, and patients and observers rated these oncologists' communication as less patient-centered and supportive. Higher implicit bias also was associated with more patient difficulty remembering contents of the interaction. In addition, oncologist implicit bias indirectly predicted less patient confidence in recommended treatments, and greater perceived difficulty completing them, through its impact on oncologists' communication (as rated by both patients and observers). Oncologist implicit racial bias is negatively associated with oncologist communication, patients' reactions to racially discordant oncology interactions, and patient perceptions of recommended treatments. These perceptions could subsequently directly affect patient-treatment decisions. Thus, implicit racial bias is a likely source of racial treatment disparities and must be addressed in oncology training and practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 26%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Researcher 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 9%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 18 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 259. 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 31 March 2020.
All research outputs
#55,039
of 14,575,437 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#102
of 14,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,058
of 262,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#5
of 317 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,575,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 262,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 317 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.