A Brief Online Implicit Bias Intervention for School Mental Health Clinicians

Clinician bias has been identified as a potential contributor to persistent healthcare disparities across many medical specialties and service settings. Few studies have examined strategies to reduce clinician bias, especially in mental healthcare, despite decades of research evidencing service and outcome disparities in adult and pediatric populations. This manuscript describes an intervention development study and a pilot feasibility trial of the Virtual Implicit Bias Reduction and Neutralization Training (VIBRANT) for mental health clinicians in schools—where most youth in the U.S. access mental healthcare. Clinicians (N = 12) in the feasibility study—a non-randomized open trial—rated VIBRANT as highly usable, appropriate, acceptable, and feasible for their school-based practice. Preliminarily, clinicians appeared to demonstrate improvements in implicit bias knowledge, use of bias-management strategies, and implicit biases (as measured by the Implicit Association Test [IAT]) post-training. Moreover, putative mediators (e.g., clinicians’ VIBRANT strategies use, IAT D scores) and outcome variables (e.g., clinician-rated quality of rapport) generally demonstrated correlations in the expected directions. These pilot results suggest that brief and highly scalable online interventions such as VIBRANT are feasible and promising for addressing implicit bias among healthcare providers (e.g., mental health clinicians) and can have potential downstream impacts on minoritized youth’s care experience.

Barriers to Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis for Young Women and Girls: a Systematic Review

There is increased recognition that women and girls with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are underserved by the clinical criteria and processes required to receive a diagnosis. This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to identify key barriers to obtaining an ASD diagnosis in girls and young women under 21 years. Six themes were identified that focused on perceived gendered symptoms, namely behavioural problems, social and communication abilities, language, relationships, additional diagnoses/difficulties and restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests. Five themes were identified as (parental) perceived barriers to diagnosis, namely compensatory behaviours, parental concerns, others’ perceptions, lack of information/resources and clinician bias. This review highlights the importance of enhancing widespread understanding and recognition of ASD presentation in females across development. PROSPERO Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (ID 2018 CRD42018087235)

Is There a Bias in the Diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Patients?

High prevalence of borderline personality disorder (BPD) diagnosis is observed among sexual minority samples. It is unclear if sexual minority individuals are systematically diagnosed with BPD at higher rates than heterosexual individuals, and if potential diagnostic disparity can be explained by differences in maladaptive personality domains. Utilizing data from partial hospital patients ( N = 1,099) the current study explored (a) differences in the frequency of diagnosis of BPD based on sexual orientation, (b) whether disparities explained differences in psychopathology across groups, and (c) the congruence between traditional methods of BPD diagnosis (i.e., clinical assessment) versus diagnosis based on elevations in self-reported maladaptive personality domains consistent with the alternative model for personality disorders. Sexual minority individuals were more likely to be diagnosed with BPD than heterosexual individuals (odds ratio [ OR] = 2.43, p < .001), even after controlling for differences in clinical correlates of BPD diagnosis (age, gender, comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder, maladaptive personality domains; OR = 1.59, p < .05). Diagnostic disparity was highest for bisexual compared with heterosexual patients. These results suggest that clinicians may be predisposed to provide a BPD diagnosis to sexual minority patients that is independent of presenting psychopathology and bear important implications for future research aimed at discerning whether such predisposition is due to measure or clinician bias.

Homeless Patients Associate Clinician Bias With Suboptimal Care for Mental Illness, Addictions, and Chronic Pain

Objective: To determine how accessible health care services are for people who are experiencing homelessness and to understand from their perspectives what impact clinician bias has on the treatment they receive. Methods: Narrative interviews were conducted with 53 homeless/vulnerably housed individuals in Ontario, Canada. Visit history records were subsequently reviewed at 2 local hospitals, for 52 of the interview participants. Results: Of the 53 participants only 28% had a primary care provider in town, an additional 40% had a provider in another town, and 32% had no access to a primary care provider at all. A subset of the individuals were frequent emergency department users, with 15% accounting for 75% of the identified hospital visits, primarily seeking treatment for mental illness, pain, and addictions. When seeking primary care for these 3 issues participants felt medication was overprescribed. Conversely, in emergency care settings participants felt prejudged by clinicians as being drug-seekers. Participants believed they received poor quality care or were denied care for mental illness, chronic pain, and addictions when clinicians were aware of their housing status. Conclusion: Mental illness, chronic pain, and addictions issues were believed by participants to be poorly treated due to clinician bias at the primary, emergency, and acute care levels. Increased access to primary care in the community could better serve this marginalized population and decrease emergency department visits but must be implemented in a way that respects the rights and dignity of this patient population.

Intellectual Equipoise and Challenges: Accruing Patients With Advanced Cancer to a Trial Randomizing to Surgical or Nonsurgical Management (SWOG S1316)

Background: Prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine optimal treatment approaches for palliative care problems such as malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). Randomization poses unique issues for such studies, especially with divergent treatment approaches and varying levels of equipoise. We report our experience accruing randomized patients to the Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial for Malignant Bowel Obstruction (SWOG S1316) study, comparing surgical and nonsurgical management of MBO. Methods: Patients with MBO who were surgical candidates and had treatment equipoise were accrued and offered randomization to surgical or nonsurgical management. Patients choosing nonrandomization were offered prospective observation. Trial details are listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT #02270450). An accrual algorithm was developed to enhance enrollment. Results: Accrual is ongoing with 176 patients enrolled. Most (89%) patients chose nonrandomization, opting for nonsurgical management. Of 25 sites that have accrued to this study, 6 enrolled patients on the randomization arm. Approximately 59% (20/34) of the randomization accrual goal has been achieved. Patient-related factors and clinician bias have been the most prevalent reasons for lack of randomization. An algorithm was developed from clinician experience to aid randomization. Using principles in this tool, repeated physician conversations discussing treatment options and goals of care, and a supportive team–approach has helped increase accrual. Conclusions: Experience gained from the S1316 study can aid future palliative care trials. Although difficult, it is possible to randomize patients to palliative studies by giving clinicians clear recommendations utilizing an algorithm of conversation, allotment of necessary time to discuss the trial, and encouragement to overcome internal bias.

How Socioeconomic Status Affects Patient Perceptions of Health Care: A Qualitative Study

Introduction: Clinician perceptions of patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) have been shown to affect clinical decision making and health care delivery in this group. However, it is unknown how and if low SES patients perceive clinician bias might affect their health care. Methods: In-depth interviews with 80 enrollees in a state Medicaid program were analyzed to identify recurrent themes in their perceptions of care. Results: Most subjects perceived that their SES affected their health care. Common themes included treatment provided, access to care, and patient-provider interaction. Discussion: This study highlights complex perceptions patients have around how SES affects their health care. These results offer opportunities to reduce health care disparities through better understanding of their impact on the individual patient-provider relationship. This work may inform interventions that promote health equity via a multifaceted approach, which targets both providers and the health care system as a whole.

Reviewing the Assumptions About Men’s Mental Health: An Exploration of the Gender Binary

Many researchers take for granted that men’s mental health can be explained in the same terms as women’s or can be gauged using the same measures. Women tend to have higher rates of internalizing disorders (i.e., depression, anxiety), while men experience more externalizing symptoms (i.e., violence, substance abuse). These patterns are often attributed to gender differences in socialization (including the acquisition of expectations associated with traditional gender roles), help seeking, coping, and socioeconomic status. However, measurement bias (inadequate survey assessment of men’s experiences) and clinician bias (practitioner’s subconscious tendency to overlook male distress) may lead to underestimates of the prevalence of depression and anxiety among men. Continuing to focus on gender differences in mental health may obscure significant within-gender group differences in men’s symptomatology. In order to better understand men’s lived experiences and their psychological well-being, it is crucial for scholars to focus exclusively on men’s mental health.