RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Implicit Bias And Unintentional Harm In Vascular Care: The Case For Intervention
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.02.13.24302798
DO 10.1101/2024.02.13.24302798
A1 Kalbaugh, Corey A.
A1 Beidelman, Erika T.
A1 Howard, Kerry A.
A1 Witrick, Brian
A1 Clark, Ashley
A1 McGinigle, Katharine L.
A1 Minc, Samantha
A1 Alabi, Olamide
A1 Hicks, Caitlin W.
A1 Gonzalez, Andrew A.
A1 Cené, Crystal W.
A1 Cykert, Samuel
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/14/2024.02.13.24302798.abstract
AB Introduction Implicit (or unconscious) bias may influence physician treatment decisions and contribute to Black-White health disparities. While implicit bias has been linked with low quality care via clinical vignettes, some worry that these studies are not representative of the ‘real world.’ There is limited data that has attempted to link implicit bias with actual care delivery and outcomes. We sought to understand if implicit bias is associated with potentially harmful surgical treatment selection in a cohort of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD)-related claudication undergoing below-knee lower extremity revascularization as captured in a ‘real world’ procedural registry.Methods We invited vascular specialists from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) to take the race Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT asks participants to associate images of Black and White Americans with either positive or negative attributes. Based on reaction time differences across sequential tests, participants were grouped into race-based implicit bias categories: pro-White bias, no bias, or pro-Black bias. Our provider-level implicit bias results were linked to patient-level registry data of peripheral revascularization procedures performed for claudication. We measured the adjusted odds of performance of below knee procedures by specialist implicit bias and patient race via mixed effects logistic regression models. We assessed implicit bias as a moderator of the association of below-knee procedures and patient race with 1-yr amputation.Results 218 vascular specialists in the United States completed the IAT and 157 (72%) had a pro-White bias. Black patients treated by a physician with pro-White bias had a 74% increase in the odds of receiving a below-knee procedure compared to the total sample (aOR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.33-2.15). When treated by a specialist with pro-White bias, Black patients had 3 times the odds of 1-yr amputation – regardless of anatomic location treated – compared to White patients (aOR: 3.04, 95% CI: 1.68-5.51). Conversely, Black patients treated by a specialist with no bias had similar odds of a below-knee procedure (aOR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67-1.30) and 1-year amputation (aOR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.35-4.96) as the full patient sample.Conclusions Implicit bias is associated with potentially harmful below-knee procedures for Black patients and contributes to Black-White outcome disparities in the United States. These results suggest the need for system-level interventions that transparently identify and warn of procedures not aligned with best practices to reduce the negative effect of implicit bias.What is new?Pro-White bias is associated with low-value care for Black patients.Black patients treated by physicians with pro-White implicit preferences also had worse 1-year amputation rates.We found little race-based variation in treatment decisions for below-knee revascularization procedures among physicians with no implicit bias as measured by the IAT.What are the clinical implications?Physicians who treat vascular diseases consider their own practices and where they may be falling short of standards, particularly for their Black patients.Health care leaders must begin to evaluate how and why their own health care systems make it possible for practitioners’ unconscious biases to negatively impact care.Policy changes that enhance payment for evidence-based procedures and reduce payment for potentially harmful procedures should be considered.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementCAK was funded for this work by Career Development Awards from the American Heart Association (19CDA34760135) and National Institute of Health/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (K01HL146900).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Institutional Review Boards at Clemson University (IRB 2020-096) and Indiana University (IRB 16325) approved this study.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesOur dataset will be hosted by the Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization. Prospective investigators are required to submit a formal proposal to the National Research Advisory Committee associated with the Vascular Quality Initiative. Even though the final dataset will be stripped of identifiers, there remains the theoretical possibility of deductive disclosure of subjects. Thus, we will make the data and associated documentation available to users only under a data-sharing agreement that provides for: (1) a commitment to using the data only for research purposes and not to identify any individual participant; (2) a commitment to securing the data using appropriate computer technology; and (3) a commitment to destroying or returning the data after analyses are completed. We will share data, or results, through traditional mechanisms such as peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national meetings. Manuscripts will be submitted for digital archiving to PubMed Central.