Implicit Bias and Health Disparities Education in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-08 DOI:10.1055/a-2240-1979
Nicolle Fernández Dyess, Cara Beth Carr, Stephanie C Mavis, Catherine G Caruso, Susan Izatt, Heather French, Rita Dadiz, Elizabeth M Bonachea, Megan M Gray
{"title":"Implicit Bias and Health Disparities Education in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.","authors":"Nicolle Fernández Dyess, Cara Beth Carr, Stephanie C Mavis, Catherine G Caruso, Susan Izatt, Heather French, Rita Dadiz, Elizabeth M Bonachea, Megan M Gray","doi":"10.1055/a-2240-1979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> This study aimed to characterize implicit bias (IB) and health disparities (HD) education in neonatal-perinatal medicine (NPM), including current educational opportunities, resources, and barriers.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> A national web-based survey was sent to NPM fellows, neonatologists, and frontline providers after iterative review by education experts from the National Neonatology Curriculum Committee. Quantitative data were analyzed with chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Qualitative data were evaluated using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Of the 452 NPM survey respondents, most desired additional IB (76%) and HD (83%) education. A greater proportion of neonatologists than fellows received IB (83 vs. 57%) and HD (87 vs. 74%) education. Only 41% of neonatologists reported that their institution requires IB training. A greater proportion of fellows than neonatologists expressed dissatisfaction with the current approaches for IB (51 vs. 25%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and HD (43 vs. 25%, <i>p</i> = 0.015) education. The leading drivers of dissatisfaction included insufficient time spent on the topics, lack of specificity to NPM, inadequate curricular scope or depth, and lack of local educator expertise. A minority of faculty who were tasked to educate others have received specific educator training on IB (21%) and HD (16%). Thematic analysis of survey free-text responses identified three main themes on the facilitators and barriers to successful IB and HD education: <i>individual</i>, <i>environmental</i>, and <i>curricular design variables</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> NPM trainees and neonatologists desire tailored, active, and expert-guided IB and HD education. Identified barriers are important to address in developing an effective IB/HD curriculum for the NPM community.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· There is a gap between the current delivery of IB/HD education and the needs of the NPM community.. · NPM trainees and neonatologists desire tailored, active, and expert-guided IB and HD education.. · A successful curriculum should be widely accessible, NPM-specific, and include facilitator training..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2240-1979","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:  This study aimed to characterize implicit bias (IB) and health disparities (HD) education in neonatal-perinatal medicine (NPM), including current educational opportunities, resources, and barriers.

Study design:  A national web-based survey was sent to NPM fellows, neonatologists, and frontline providers after iterative review by education experts from the National Neonatology Curriculum Committee. Quantitative data were analyzed with chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Qualitative data were evaluated using thematic analysis.

Results:  Of the 452 NPM survey respondents, most desired additional IB (76%) and HD (83%) education. A greater proportion of neonatologists than fellows received IB (83 vs. 57%) and HD (87 vs. 74%) education. Only 41% of neonatologists reported that their institution requires IB training. A greater proportion of fellows than neonatologists expressed dissatisfaction with the current approaches for IB (51 vs. 25%, p < 0.001) and HD (43 vs. 25%, p = 0.015) education. The leading drivers of dissatisfaction included insufficient time spent on the topics, lack of specificity to NPM, inadequate curricular scope or depth, and lack of local educator expertise. A minority of faculty who were tasked to educate others have received specific educator training on IB (21%) and HD (16%). Thematic analysis of survey free-text responses identified three main themes on the facilitators and barriers to successful IB and HD education: individual, environmental, and curricular design variables.

Conclusion:  NPM trainees and neonatologists desire tailored, active, and expert-guided IB and HD education. Identified barriers are important to address in developing an effective IB/HD curriculum for the NPM community.

Key points: · There is a gap between the current delivery of IB/HD education and the needs of the NPM community.. · NPM trainees and neonatologists desire tailored, active, and expert-guided IB and HD education.. · A successful curriculum should be widely accessible, NPM-specific, and include facilitator training..

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新生儿重症监护室中的隐性偏见和健康差异教育。
目的 描述新生儿-围产期医学(NPM)中的隐性偏见(IB)和健康差异(HD)教育的特点,包括当前的教育机会、资源和障碍。研究设计 经国家新生儿课程委员会的教育专家反复审查后,向新生儿围产医学研究员、新生儿科医生和一线医疗人员发送了一份全国性网络调查。定量数据采用卡方检验(chi-square)和费雪精确检验(Fisher exact tests)进行分析。定性数据采用主题分析法进行评估。结果 在 452 名国家预防机制调查的受访者中,大多数人希望获得额外的 IB(76%)和 HD(83%)教育。接受 IB(83% 对 57%)和 HD(87% 对 74%)教育的新生儿科医生比例高于研究员。只有 41% 的新生儿科医生表示其所在机构要求进行 IB 培训。与新生儿专科医生相比,有更多的研究员对目前的 IB 方法表示不满(51% 对 25%,P<0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
期刊最新文献
A Description of IVIG Use in Term Neonates with ABO Incompatibility. Early-Pregnancy Resilience Characteristics before versus during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Infant Mortality Categorized by Birth Weight Percentiles for Deliveries between 22 and 28 Weeks of Gestation. Are Racial Disparities in Cesarean Due to Differences in Labor Induction Management? Factors Associated with the Uptake of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception and Contraceptive Use in Postpartum People with HIV at a Single Tertiary Care Center.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1