Consensus on an implicit bias and health disparities curriculum in neonatal medicine: a Delphi study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1915181/v1

PDF

Article

Consensus on an implicit bias and health disparities curriculum in neonatal medicine: a Delphi study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1915181/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

OBJECTIVE

Despite longstanding and recurrent calls for effective implicit bias (IB) education in health professions education as one mechanism to reduce ongoing racism and health disparities, evidence-based IB curricula for neonatal-perinatal medicine (NPM) are limited. We aim to determine the key IB curricular elements for teaching NPM fellows, advanced practice providers, and attending physicians.

STUDY DESIGN

A modified Delphi study was performed with content experts in IB and health disparities who had educational relationships to those working and training in the neonatal intensive care unit.

RESULT

Three Delphi rounds were conducted. Experts reached consensus on a variety of items for inclusion in an IB curriculum, including educational goals, learning objectives, teaching strategies, and educator principles.

CONCLUSION

Essential IB curricular components for the field of neonatal medicine were defined using rigorous consensus building methodology.

health equity

unconscious bias

health professions education

neonatology

neonatal-perinatal medicine

Infants and families of color or from marginalized communities experience health inequities, defined as avoidable inequalities of health between populations, within the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). These inequities are evident as differences in preterm birth rates,¹ care delivery,²^,³ and outcomes.^4-6 Striking differences in quality of care and health outcomes exist between and within hospitals.⁷ Racism, the “system of ignorance, exploitation, and power, whereby one group deems itself superior to all others on the basis of ethnicity, culture, mannerisms, and color,” is a powerful social determinant of health that underlies these health inequities.⁸ Training and practice in antiracism is fundamental to achieving health equity.

Implicit biases are the judgements and “habits of mind” that form below the level of conscious awareness, without intention, effort, or control.⁹^,¹⁰ These unconscious conclusions may contribute to personally mediated racism, a form of racism described by Dr. Camara Jones¹¹ that includes human acts of commission and omission built upon unconscious and conscious beliefs and values, which are supported by modern culture and structures. These biases are ubiquitous, observed even among health professions education (HPE) learners¹² and professionals,¹³ and they often exist in stark opposition to self-reported perceptions of and behaviors towards Black people.¹⁴

IBs have been linked to health disparities¹⁵^,¹⁶ but are potentially modifiable,¹⁷^,¹⁸ leading to a longstanding call for effective IB education of health professionals and HPE learners,⁹^,^19-21 including within pediatrics⁸ and its subspecialties such as neonatology²². Though many have attempted to study IB education in healthcare, empirical studies of IB education within HPE commonly assess only lower-level learning outcomes such as self-assessed awareness or knowledge,^23-25 and few assess for lasting changes in knowledge, skill or behavior.²⁶^,²⁷ The instructional approaches to IB education are similarly diverse, frequently developed and implemented at single institutions and/or woven into other curricula (such as cultural competency, health disparities, anti-racism, or anti-oppression curricula).¹²^,²³^,²⁴^,²⁷^,²⁸ Practical considerations also exist, and educators may find it difficult to translate such theoretical models to actual educational interventions even though several expert conceptual frameworks exist for IB education within HPE.^29-31 Nonetheless, for IB education to lead to meaningful antiracism outcomes, dedicated IB curricula rooted in theory, developed by experts in content and education science, and with evidence of meaningful outcomes of interest are needed. Such a curriculum, specific to the needs of those within the unique field of neonatal medicine, has not been described to date.

To advance the rigor of IB education and assess its impact within neonatal medicine, we envisioned a scholarly approach to curriculum development³² aligned with higher level assessment³³ and evaluation³⁴ outcomes. To create a teachable, generalizable, and scalable IB and health disparities curriculum for those practicing in modern NICUs, including neonatal-perinatal medicine (NPM) fellows, advanced practice providers (APPs), and attending physician faculty, we set out to define the essential curricular components of an evidence-based IB curriculum. In this report, we present our approach to the development of curricular goals and objectives (Kern’s Step 3) and educational strategies (Kern’s Step 4)³² using a modified Delphi process with national experts in IB and health disparities.

As the ideal approaches to educating neonatal providers on IB and health disparities are not known, the modified Delphi method is a reasonable approach to define the optimal curricular components. Like other consensus building methods, the modified Delphi method relies on anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, statistical group response, and structured interaction.³⁵ The modified Delphi accomodates a diverse group of geographically remote experts; this is especially relevant to IB and health disparities topics where inclusivity is key to a balanced outcome. Through anonymity and avoidance of face-to-face discussions, this method reduces the risk of undue influence of the group by any particular participant.³⁵ Virtual and asynchronous participation by qualified experts also allows for ample time and space to consider difficult questions of high uncertainty and speculation.³⁶

DEVELOPMENT OF DELPHI QUESTIONNAIRE:

In accordance with our curricular development framework,³² we began our problem identification and understanding of current approaches to IB education by conducting a broad literature review of such curricula within health professions education; this formed the basis of potential curricular components for Delphi expert deliberation. We organized these components into the following categories: curricular goals, specific learning objectives, educational strategies/methods, and educator principles. Learning objectives were further organized into objectives related to bias and the self, the impact of race in our society, ideas of power and privilege, and clinician skills and behaviors. Educational strategies/methods were subcategorized as general strategies, those related to use of the Implicit Association Test (IAT),³⁷ bias reduction strategies, and strategies of how to respond to incidents of racism. Educator principles were further categorized as unintended consequences of the curriculum, participant and educator factors that may influence efficacy, and the ideal learning climate.

We organized the questionnaire with response options indicating level of agreement for inclusion using a 5-point Likert-scale (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree). We instructed experts to leave an item blank if they were unfamiliar with the item or felt unable to comment. For every curricular subcategory, we included optional free-text spaces for experts to provide their reasoning for item inclusion and/or exclusion and propose ideas for additional items not originally addressed. Because of the significance and nature of the topics, we felt it was particularly important to ensure sensitive and inclusive language on items, so we also asked experts for any suggestions for item rewording.

We performed cognitive interviews and pilot tested the survey with a group of neonatal medicine educators (the executive council of the National Neonatology Curriculum Committee). The final version of the questionnaire was approved by all study authors. Subsequent questionnaires were developed based on the study investigators’ review of Delphi expert feedback and used the same Likert agreement scale with free text explanation format.

EXPERT SELECTION:

Delphi methodology requires the selection of experts who have a deep understanding of the identified issue.¹³ We used purposive and snowball sampling to identify potential Delphi participants. Our investigator team developed a list of qualified experts who met two broad initial criteria: 1) content expertise in IB and/or health disparities and 2) neonatology educator. We defined content expertise as being identified as a leader in IB/health disparities via the person’s leadership, educational, advocacy, social media, or research roles. We also required participants to have had an educational relationship (either historical or present) with NICU learners and/or nurses, allied health professionals, APPs, and neonatologists, as we were interested in those with educational expertise involving NPM health care professionals and learners.

Our investigator team used professional networks to identify potential experts meeting the recruitment criteria. For geographic regions not represented in this list, we searched institutional websites for experts in IB and/or health disparities at institutions with a NPM fellowship. We also sought experts with primary roles within general pediatrics and maternal-fetal medicine to gain a diversity of viewpoints for those caring for the parental-infant dyad before, during, and after the NICU stay. Finally, we asked those who agreed to participate to provide the names of other potential IB or health disparities experts and invited the recommended individuals to join the Delphi study.

CONSENSUS DEFINITION:

We defined consensus a priori in terms of percent agreement amongst experts. Items were included in the final curriculum when ≥70% of respondents provided responses of “strongly agree” or “agree” for item inclusion. We determined that items with <50% of total responses as “strongly agree” and “agree” be excluded from subsequent Delphi rounds. Items reaching indeterminate consensus (50-69% of experts responding “strongly agree” or “agree”) required additional deliberation in subsequent Delphi rounds. Because the focus of the Delphi was to develop and include all critical items, we did not use the Delphi process to rank items in terms of importance nor limit the number of items reaching consensus.

DELPHI PROCESS

We used REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) hosted at Mayo Clinic for data collection and management.³⁸ Prior to consensus building, the purpose and goals of the Delphi process were explicitly described to the experts. In round one, we collected information on expert demographics and asked experts to define their sphere, extent, and scope of expertise in education, research, leadership, and advocacy.

Using statistical group response, we provided aggregate, anonymized feedback after each round, summarizing percent agreement for each item and identifying items that had reached consensus, those that required further deliberation (such as novel items proposed by experts or those reaching indeterminate agreement), and items failing to reach consensus. Experts were only asked to participate in subsequent rounds if they participated in all preceding rounds.

In each successive round, after reviewing the statistical group response, experts provided their level of agreement with all novel suggestions and their input on items requiring additional deliberation. For items that had achieved consensus but had suggested revisions regarding optimal wording, experts were asked to choose between “maintain,” “revise,” or “either wording is acceptable.” Items were maintained in their original form if the percentage of “maintain” responses plus “either is acceptable” responses exceeded 70% of the total responses; items were modified if the percentage of “revise” responses plus “either is acceptable” exceeded 70% of the total responses. In the event of a tie between rewording options, the author group discussed and determined final item wording based on all expert feedback.

For items reaching intermediate expert agreement (50-69% agreement), the author group developed potential revisions using experts’ free-response feedback and asked experts whether items should be maintained in the original format, revised to a modified item, either maintained or revised, or removed entirely. We included each of these items only when the percentage of experts responding with “maintain” or “revise” was >70%. Items reaching 50-69% agreement that had additional suggestions for rewording were re-posed to experts in the subsequent round, and those with <50% agreement for inclusion were removed.

We conducted the Delphi process iteratively until consensus for inclusion or exclusion was reached for all proposed items. Descriptive statistics, using Microsoft Excel (MS Excel), were used to evaluate demographics and Likert scores.

PARTICIPANTS:

Of the 48 experts invited to participate in the Delphi, 24 (50%) accepted and participated in round 1. Experts represented a diverse group of educators, leaders, and researchers within the spheres of IB and health disparities with varying years of experience in clinical medicine (Table 1). Most experts reported educational expertise (22/24, 92%) and leadership roles (17/24, 71%). Most experts also defined themselves as researchers with publications in peer-reviewed journals for the topics of IB and health disparities (18/24, 75%), with two experts also holding multiple R01 level National Institutes of Health grants related to these topics (2/24, 8%). Three quarters (18/24) of the experts participated in round two, and 15 of those 18 experts (83%) participated in the final round.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of multidisciplinary experts participating in the Delphi study.
EXPERT CHARACTERISTIC (n = 24)	n (%)
Sex
Male	6 (25%)
Female	18 (75%)
Race^a
Asian	5 (21%)
Black or African American	7 (29%)
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin	4 (17%)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0 (0%)
White	10 (42%)
Primary specialty
Neonatology	17 (71%)
Other pediatric subspecialty	2 (8%)
General pediatrics	3 (12%)
OB/GYN	1 (4%)
Other^b	1 (4%)
Years in practice
Fellow	2 (8%)
0–9	10 (42%)
10–19	8 (33%)
20–30	4 (17%)
Sphere of expertise in IB and/or Health Disparities^a
Education Learner only Instructor only As both learner and instructor	22 (92%) 7/22 1/22 14/22
Research	18 (75%)
Leadership	17 (71%)
Advocacy	15 (62%)
Social media	7 (29%)
Other	1 (4%)
Educator reach^a
Local institution	13 (54%)
Regional	7 (29%)
National	8 (33%)
International	1 (4%)
Leadership reach^a
Local institution	15 (62%)
Regional	4 (17%)
National	6 (25%)
International	1 (4%)
^a Experts were instructed to select all that apply ^b Other indicates a non-clinician DEI expert

DELPHI PROCESS:

Three Delphi rounds were conducted to reach consensus. Figure 1 shows a detailed overview of individual curricular item handling during the Delphi process. Percent agreement for each proposed item (expert response of either “strongly agree” or “agree” for item inclusion in the final curriculum) is shown in Appendix 1.

In Round One, 66 original curricular items described in the literature (7 goals, 18 objectives, 30 educational methods/strategies, and 11 educator principles) were proposed to experts. Four items were removed after round one due to < 50% agreement; 8 items had indeterminate agreement for inclusion (50–69%) amongst experts. Analysis of the free-response comments from experts led to the addition of 1 goal, 6 objectives, 4 educational methods/strategies, and 4 educator principles for deliberation in Round Two. Suggestions for rewording were posed for 4 goals, 12 objectives, and 3 educational methods/strategies. At the end of Round One, consensus was reached for inclusion of 55 items: 7 goals, 18 objectives, 23 educational methods/strategies, and 6 educator principles.

In Round Two, 9 items were removed due to persistent non-agreement for inclusion, and 19 consensus items were reworded. No new items were proposed. At the end of Round Two, consensus was reached for the inclusion of 64 items: 8 goals, 23 objectives, 26 educational methods/strategies and 7 educator principles. Two of these objectives had reached consensus but still had free-response comments recommending rewording. Three items had indeterminate consensus at this stage.

In Round Three, experts provided clarification regarding the remaining 5 unresolved items. Two objectives were reworded, and 1 objective was reclassified as an educator principle. Two other educator principles were removed due to persistent non-agreement.

After three Delphi rounds, consensus was reached for the inclusion and language of 8 goals and 23 objectives (Table 2) and 26 educational methods/strategies and 8 educator principles (Table 3).

Table 2

Expert consensus for included goals and objectives.
GOALS
G1. Improve individual understanding of the science of IB G2. Increase learner’s self-awareness of personal biases (including implicit and explicit biases) G3. Increase learners' self-awareness of privilege and positionality (an understanding of one's own racial identities and their relationships to systems of power and oppression) G4. Recognize the relationship between implicit bias, clinician behavior and NICU outcomes and care delivery G5. Understand the influence of multiple contributors to modern health disparities in the NICU patient and their families (such as historical foundations of racism, structural racism, language disparities, and implicit bias) G6. Apply different strategies to reduce bias G7. Reflect on practical strategies that may reduce health disparities at your home institution G8. Recognize and respond to microaggressions and other observed bias, prejudice, discrimination and/or racism
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
O1. Acknowledge that implicit bias exists even in well-meaning individuals O2. Reflect on the emotions you experience when facing your own implicit bias O3. Recognize that personal and professional growth in implicit bias occurs over time and requires a lifelong commitment and cultural humility O4. Describe the concept of racial anxiety (the discomfort of the experience and potential consequences of interracial interaction) O5. Describe the concept of stereotype threat (when a person is concerned that they will confirm a negative stereotype about their group) O6. Describe racial and ethnic population trends in the US O7. Identify the unique features of the communities in which one practices medicine O8. Define the prevalence and severity of current racial and ethnic health disparities in the NICU population locally, regionally, and nationally O9. Define race as a sociopolitical, not biological, construct O10. Reflect on the origins of racial categories in the US O11. Discuss the relationship between patient-provider racial concordance and patient care delivery and outcome data O12. Describe the relationships between bias, power and privilege using historical or personal examples O13. Define power imbalances between healthcare providers and patients O14. Describe the relationship between racial and cultural attitudes and quality of care O15. Practice intentional strategies of internal reflection to recognize and learn from your own biases and/or privilege O16. Recognize the role of shared decision making to address conflict that results from differences between patient explanatory models of illness and treatment and those of medical providers O17. Apply several strategies that facilitate equitable cross-cultural and cross-language clinical encounters* O18. Apply skills to mitigate systemic and institutional racism in order to ensure equitable care O19. Explore your own worldview using the lens of critical consciousness (an awareness and questioning of power and privilege) O20. Apply the concept of allyship in order to identify personal biases and recognize their effects on others O21. Recognize the value in viewing patients as individuals, not as stereotypes O22. Identify various resources that can be used to help address health disparities O23. Describe best practices for interpreter use in the NICU for patients with limited English proficiency

Table 3

Expert consensus for included educational strategies/methods and educator principles.
EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES & METHODS
S1. Include both emotional and cognitive elements S2. Acknowledge that the way we view the world is through our own intersectional biases S3. Individualized goal setting by learners S4. Incorporate empathy training S5. Utilize individual reflection exercises S6. Utilize group reflection exercises S7. Allow for guided debriefing after any reflective exercise S8. Incorporate clinical vignettes S9. Specifically utilize films (ie: video-based contact) that provide a minoritized viewpoint S10. Include learners sharing personal stories S11. Include subject matter experts sharing personal stories S12. Teach back exercises (opportunities for learners to teach others what they have learned in the curriculum) S13. Stereotype replacement S14. Counter-stereotyping S15. Individuation S16. Perspective taking S17. Increasing opportunities for contact S18. Doubting objectivity S19. Improving conditions for decision making S20. Counting (measuring differences in clinical outcomes) S21. Be mindful of assumptions S22. The Step Up/Step Back model, for determining when to either speak out for those unable to (Step Up) or support the marginalized to speak out for themselves (Step Back) S23. The HEALs model (halt, engage, allow discussion, learn) for addressing hurtful or insensitive remarks S24. The "Time Out" strategy, analogous to a surgical time out, for addressing hurtful or insensitive remarks S25. The "Courageous Conversations" framework for how to effectively engage, sustain and deepen interracial dialogues S26. The "Active Bystander" model to heighten awareness of bystanders' power, teach when passivity becomes complicity, and teach how bystanders can interrupt harm doing and generate positive actions by others
EDUCATOR PRINCIPLES
EP1. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a 'catalytic reagent' that can reveal personal biases to the learner EP2. The IAT should not be used in isolation, as knowledge of one's bias alone may lead to discounting of the findings or even hostility in the learner EP3. Some approaches to implicit bias, stigma and racism may perpetuate shame or guilt in learners EP4. Small group discussions about race and disparities may marginalize minority students in those groups EP5. Providing a cultural "menu" (lists of cultural norms and descriptions of cultural differences) encourages racial stereotyping EP6. Certain educational strategies may add to the minority tax EP7. The curriculum should occur with URM learners and non-URM learners together EP8. Educators should recognize how the hierarchy within medical teams can affect patient care and the creation of a safe space

IB exists in healthcare providers,³⁹ can increase throughout medical training,⁴⁰ and may be a modifiable factor in reducing health disparities due to racism.⁴¹ The IB education literature is characterized by variable approaches to curricular design and evaluation, learner outcomes assessed, and quality of reporting.^{12,23,24,27,28} If IB education is to lead to long-term changes in provider knowledge, skills, and attitudes, then a rigorous approach to curricular development is necessary. In this national modified Delphi study, a diverse group of subject matter experts in IB and health disparities with established relationships with NPM learners and staff reached consensus for curricular goals, learning objectives, education methods/strategies, and educator principles that will lay the foundation for a targeted neonatal medicine IB and health disparities curriculum.

Delineation of educational goals is critical to rigorous curriculum development for two reasons. First, goals should reflect the desired learning outcomes, and thus, they emphasize the development of certain knowledge, skills, or attitudes. This has profound implications on the appropriateness of subsequent learner assessment and curriculum evaluations. For example, curricula with goals oriented to provider behavioral change (e.g., communication strategies) align well with the assessment of simulated and real provider behaviors, as well as the impact of these behaviors on patients. Secondly, goals inform which learning objectives are required, and subsequently, which educational strategies will be appropriate to achieve the learning objectives.

In our Delphi process, experts reached consensus on eight overarching goals. These goals emphasize self-awareness of bias (G2 and G3), knowledge of the multiple components of modern health disparities (G1, G4, G5 and G7), and strategies for provider behavioral change (G6 and G8). The goals developed in this modified Delphi study reflect consensus opinion that IB education must not stop at acknowledgement and awareness of one’s IBs, but that such education must also provide learners with opportunities to practice bias mitigation and interventions when bias is recognized. This is similar to IB frameworks within broader HPE contexts imploring educators and institutions to “move beyond concepts toward applications.”²¹

The educational goals reaching consensus gave rise to numerous cognitive, social and behaviorist-oriented objectives that align with multiple levels of knowledge, as described by Miller.³³ These objectives encompassed concepts related to bias and the self (O1-5), the impact of race in our society (O6-11), power and privilege (O12-16), and clinician skills and behaviors (O17-23). Significant attention was given to the action verbs within the objectives by both the study team and the Delphi experts to ensure objectives were specific, measurable, achievable, and realistic, which are critical to inform appropriate learning and assessment strategies. Because of the nature of the topics, many cognitively oriented objectives (with verbs such as “describe,” “identify,” and “reflect”) were found to be appropriate by the expert panel. These objectives support the foundational level of knowledge (in Miller’s pyramid, that a learner “knows”) and lend themselves well to written assessments.³³ Although foundational and necessary, this knowledge level is not sufficient for the ultimate goal of reducing provider IB and subsequently reducing health disparities.⁴¹ Additional objectives reaching consensus support application and demonstration of knowledge, specifically in the development and practice of skills to recognize and mitigate IB (O17-23). These skills (with verbs such as “develop,” “articulate,” and “apply”) allow for learning at the level of Miller’s “shows” and “does”³³ and lend themselves well to oral, performance, and workplace-based assessments.

Though experts reached very high levels of agreement for goals and objectives that closely aligned with several established IB educational frameworks, the educational methods, strategies, and guiding principles were more contentious. Some educational approaches advocated in the literature were rejected by the expert panel, showing that not all strategies espoused in the literature are recommended as practical and useful by experts. Eight educational methods/strategies and eight educator principles proposed in the literature failed to reach consensus amongst this expert group (see Appendix 1). For example, experts disagreed that this curriculum should incorporate mindfulness training, implore learners to increase their motivation to be fair, use fantasy characters to teach about stigma, or use exercises based on public exposure of privilege. Experts also had divergent opinions about the utility of the Implicit Association Test (IAT)³⁷ and did not reach consensus that the IAT should be a required component of the curriculum. Experts did not agree that taking an IAT leads to changes in learner self-perception, a finding that Gonzalez and colleagues have also reported.¹² Experts also did not reach consensus on the value of the IAT as an assessment tool for long-term learning nor as a program evaluation tool. This finding aligns with the guidance from Project Implicit which specifically states that the IAT does not meet reliability standards for measurement and discourages its use as an assessment tool within pre-post research designs unless a control group is also used.³⁷ Nonetheless, experts reached consensus that the IAT has a role as a “catalytic reagent” for inciting self-awareness though cautioned its use in isolation, as knowledge of one's biases alone may lead to discounting of the findings or even hostility in the learner.

Experts encouraged educational strategies such as reflection, storytelling and teach back for learning about IB. Strongly endorsed bias mitigation strategies (with > 90% agreement) included stereotype replacement, counter-stereotyping, individuation, perspective taking, and increasing opportunities for contact. Experts also reached consensus for all five proposed bias-response strategies, with the highest levels of percent agreement for the Step Up/Step Back method (100%)²⁴ and the Active-Bystander model (93%).⁴² The Step Up/Step Back model encourages participants to actively decide whether to speak out for those unable to or to support others to speak out for themselves, whereas the Active Bystander model focuses on recognition of the bystander role, inhibitors and facilitators of action, and a variety of intervention techniques. This suggests that learners may benefit from learning multiple practical strategies for attending to bias.

Finally, the consensus on educator principles suggest that educators, facilitators, and learners all shape the learning environment during IB and health disparities education. Learners approach bias education from a variety of backgrounds and with unique life experiences and educators may benefit from conducting local needs assessments to determine their own learners needs, baseline knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In contrast to many curricula in which goals and objectives are to be completed at the end of a finite period, experts agreed that personal and professional growth in IB topics are lifelong pursuits that cannot be addressed in a single session, module, or calendar year. Experts valued individual goal setting and encouraged educators to recognize that learners may progress in their knowledge and skill at different rates. Thus, the ideal curriculum would allow for local educators to determine the relative emphasis, frequency, and duration of topics. Experts encouraged facilitators to vigilantly monitor for power imbalances and adverse effects on learners (such as marginalization, adding to the minority tax, shame, or guilt), and discouraged educators from presenting cultural “menus” and perpetuating stereotypes. Finally, though both “safe” and “brave” spaces are advocated for in the literature,^{24, 29, 43} experts did not agree that one approach was superior to another; they instead left the choice to the local facilitator.

This study has limitations related to the modified Delphi process. The final product of consensus building methodologies relies on the level of expertise of the expert pool.⁴⁴ Expert attrition during the Delphi study was moderate. We also chose an a priori level for consensus as 70% agreement and did not force experts to rank order items in order of importance, both of which may increase the number of final curricular components and make the curriculum longer or more complicated than desired. Yet, the number of items reaching high levels of expert consensus highlights the complexity of this topic, and it is unlikely that any one curriculum would be able to incorporate all these elements. Instead, the compiled lists provide educators a scholarly initial direction to bias education while still allowing them to tailor the curriculum to their local learners, resources, and contexts.

In summary, a rigorous approach to a neonatology specific IB and health disparities curriculum is a key step towards promoting health equity in the NICU. Delphi experts reached consensus for numerous curricular components, including goals and objectives, educational strategies, and learning environment considerations, for such a curriculum. These curricular components should be considered when creating IB focused educational materials for NICU providers. Future studies are needed to evaluate the proposed methods of delivering this curriculum and its effects on patient and family outcomes.

Conflicts of Interest: None

IRB: This study was approved by Mayo Clinic IRB (IRB Application #: 21-000682).

Author Contribution statement: SCM:Methodology, investigation, data curation, visualization, formal analysis, writing- original draft. CGC, CBC, NFD: Methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing- review & editing. HF, RD, MV, LJ, MGK, PC, SI, AHP, MMC, EMB: Conceptualization, methodology, writing- review & editing. MMG: Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing- review & editing.

Funding information: This work was supported by a 2020 American Academy of Pediatrics Section of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine (SONPM) Strategic Grant. The funding agency had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

March of Dimes. 2021 March of Dimes Report Card. 2021 [Accessed February 19, 2022] Available from: https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/tools/reportcard.aspx
Lee HC, Gould JB, Martin-Anderson S, Dudley RA. Breast-milk feeding of very low birth weight infants as a function of hospital demographics. Journal of Perinatology 2011, 31(S1): S82-S82.
Hendricks-Muñoz KD, Li Y, Kim YS, Prendergast CC, Mayers R, Louie M. Maternal and neonatal nurse perceived value of kangaroo mother care and maternal care partnership in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Perinatol 2013, 30(10): 875–880.
Riddell CA, Harper S, Kaufman JS. Trends in Differences in US Mortality Rates Between Black and White Infants. JAMA Pediatrics 2017, 171(9): 911.
Natarajan G, Mathur A, Zaniletti I, Digeronimo R, Lee KS, Rao R, et al. Withdrawal of Life-Support in Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy. Pediatric Neurology 2019, 91: 20–26.
Sigurdson K, Mitchell B, Liu J, Morton C, Gould JB, Lee HC, et al. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Neonatal Intensive Care: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics 2019, 144(2): e20183114.
Profit J, Gould JB, Bennett M, Goldstein BA, Draper D, Phibbs CS, et al. Racial/Ethnic Disparity in NICU Quality of Care Delivery. Pediatrics 2017, 140(3): e20170918.
Trent M, Dooley DG, Dougé J, Cavanaugh RM, Lacroix AE, Fanburg J, et al. The Impact of Racism on Child and Adolescent Health. Pediatrics 2019, 144(2): e20191765.
Burgess D, van Ryn M, Dovidio J, Saha S. Reducing racial bias among health care providers: lessons from social-cognitive psychology. J Gen Intern Med 2007, 22(6): 882–887.
Dasgupta N. Mechanisms underlying the malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes: The role of automaticity and cognitive control. In: Nelson TD (ed). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Psychology Press, 2009, pp 267–284.
Jones CP. Levels of racism: a theoretic framework and a gardener's tale. American Journal of Public Health 2000, 90(8): 1212–1215.
Gonzalez CM, Kim MY, Marantz PR. Implicit bias and its relation to health disparities: a teaching program and survey of medical students. Teaching & Learning in Medicine 2014, 26(1): 64–71.
Fitzgerald C, Hurst S. Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics 2017, 18(1).
Rudman LA, Ashmore RD, Gary ML. "Unlearning" automatic biases: the malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. J Pers Soc Psychol 2001, 81(5): 856–868.
Green AR, Carney DR, Pallin DJ, Ngo LH, Raymond KL, Iezzoni LI, et al. Implicit Bias among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2007, 22(9): 1231–1238.
Dehon E, Weiss N, Jones J, Faulconer W, Hinton E, Sterling S. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Physician Implicit Racial Bias on Clinical Decision Making. Acad Emerg Med 2017, 24(8): 895–904.
Blair IV. The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2002, 6(3): 242–261.
Conrey FR, Sherman JW, Gawronski B, Hugenberg K, Groom CJ. Separating Multiple Processes in Implicit Social Cognition: The Quad Model of Implicit Task Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005, 89(4): 469–487.
Karani R, Varpio L, May W, Horsley T, Chenault J, Miller KH, et al. Commentary: Racism and Bias in Health Professions Education: How Educators, Faculty Developers, and Researchers Can Make a Difference. Academic Medicine 2017, 92(11S Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Research in Medical Education Sessions): S1-S6.
deShazo RD, Hoesley CJ, Vickers SM. Ending Racial Bias in American Medicine: A Call for Help from the AMA, NMA, AAMC and the Rest of Us. Am J Med 2020.
Argueza BR, Saenz SR, McBride D. From Diversity and Inclusion to Antiracism in Medical Training Institutions. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2021, 96(6): 798–801.
Montoya-Williams D, Fraiman YS, Peña MM, Burris HH, Pursley DM. Antiracism in the Field of Neonatology: A Foundation and Concrete Approaches. NeoReviews 2022, 23(1): e1-e12.
Avant ND, Gillespie GL. Pushing for health equity through structural competency and implicit bias education: A qualitative evaluation of a racial/ethnic health disparities elective course for pharmacy learners. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning 2019, 11(4): 382–393.
Wu D, Saint-Hilaire L, Pineda A, Hessler D, Saba GW, Salazar R, et al. The Efficacy of an Antioppression Curriculum for Health Professionals. Family medicine 2019, 51(1): 22–30.
Zeidan A, Tiballi A, Woodward M, Di Bartolo IM. Targeting Implicit Bias in Medicine: Lessons from Art and Archaeology. The western journal of emergency medicine 2019, 21(1): 1–3.
Schultz PL, Baker J. Teaching Strategies to Increase Nursing Student Acceptance and Management of Unconscious Bias. Journal of Nursing Education 2017, 56(11): 692–696.
Sherman MD, Ricco J, Nelson SC, Nezhad SJ, Prasad S. Implicit Bias Training in a Residency Program: Aiming for Enduring Effects. Family medicine 2019, 51(8): 677–681.
Ona FF, Amutah-Onukagha NN, Asemamaw R, Schlaff AL. Struggles and Tensions in Anti-Racism Education in Medical School: Lessons Learned. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2020, 01.
Sukhera J, Watling C. A Framework for Integrating Implicit Bias Recognition Into Health Professions Education. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2018, 93(1): 35–40.
Hagiwara N, Kron FW, Scerbo MW, Watson GS. A call for grounding implicit bias training in clinical and translational frameworks. Lancet 2020, 395(10234): 1457–1460.
Sukhera J, Watling CJ, Gonzalez CM. Implicit Bias in Health Professions: From Recognition to Transformation. Academic Medicine 2020, 95(5): 717–723.
Thomas PA, Kern DE, Hughes MT, Chen BY. Curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach, Third edn, 2016.
Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 1990, 65(9 Suppl): S63-67.
Kirkpatrick D. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Training & Development 1996, 50(1): 54.
Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Wood TJ, Gonsalves C, Ufholz L, Mascioli K, et al. The Use of the Delphi and Other Consensus Group Methods in Medical Education Research: A Review. Academic Medicine 2017, 92(10): 1491–1498.
Okoli C, Pawlowski SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management 2004, 42(1): 15–29.
Implicit Project. Implicit Association Test. [Accessed December 1, 2021] Available from: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009, 42(2): 377–381.
Maina IW, Belton TD, Ginzberg S, Singh A, Johnson TJ. A decade of studying implicit racial/ethnic bias in healthcare providers using the implicit association test. Soc Sci Med 2018, 199: 219–229.
Zestcott CA, Blair IV, Stone J. Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review. Group processes & intergroup relations: GPIR 2016, 19(4): 528–542.
Chapman EN, Kaatz A, Carnes M. Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. J Gen Intern Med 2013, 28(11): 1504–1510.
Training Active Bystanders. 2021 [Accessed March 15, 2021] Available from: https://www.trainingactivebystanders.org/
Arao B, Clemens K. From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice. The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators.
Humphrey-Murto S., Varpio L., Wood T. J., Gonsalves C., Ufholz L. A., Mascioli K., et al. The Use of the Delphi and Other Consensus Group Methods in Medical Education Research: A Review. Acad Med 2017, 92(10): 1491–1498.

There is NO conflict of interest to disclose.

Delphisupplementalfile7.31.docx

PDF

Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
05 Aug, 2022
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
04 Aug, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
03 Aug, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
01 Aug, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
31 Jul, 2022
First submitted to journal
31 Jul, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Consensus on an implicit bias and health disparities curriculum in neonatal medicine: a Delphi study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

PARTICIPANTS:

DELPHI PROCESS:

Discussion

Declarations

References

Competing Interests

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1