"But what do you really think?" Nurses' contrasting explicit and implicit attitudes towards people with disabilities using the implicit association test.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Clinical Nursing Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1111/jocn.17097
Daniel W Derbyshire, Tamsin Keay
{"title":"\"But what do you really think?\" Nurses' contrasting explicit and implicit attitudes towards people with disabilities using the implicit association test.","authors":"Daniel W Derbyshire, Tamsin Keay","doi":"10.1111/jocn.17097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate how nurses' implicit and explicit attitudes towards people with disabilities (PWD) compare to (1) other healthcare providers and (2) non-healthcare providers.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We present an analysis of secondary data from the publicly available disability Implicit Association Test (IAT). We compare the explicit and implicit attitudes towards PWD for (1) nurses (n = 24,545), (2) other healthcare providers (n = 57,818) and (3) non-healthcare providers (n = 547,966) for a total of 630,238 respondents, between 2006 and 2021.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We use publicly available data for the Disability IAT from Open Science Framework repository of Project Implicit available at https://osf.io/tx5fi/.</p><p><strong>Reporting: </strong>STROBE checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There is a distinct contrast between nurses' explicit and implicit attitudes. While nurses have more positive explicit attitudes towards PWD compared to other groups, they also have more negative implicit attitudes towards PWD. As such there is a contrast between nurses' stated (explicit) attitudes and their unconscious (implicit) attitudes towards PWD. Further, we find that implicit bias towards PWD-among all groups-has not improved over the 15 year period of our sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We present a contrast between nurses' explicit and implicit attitude towards PWD compared to non-healthcare providers. We posit that implicit bias is driven by a combination of workload and stress which drives nurses to unconscious modes of thinking more frequently.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>We discuss three potential tools for improved educational praxis regarding treatment of PWD; (1) more PWD service user involvement, (2) the use of mindfulness techniques to reduce stress and (3) the use of patient contact simulation to promote education and understanding.</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>There is no patient or public contribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":50236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17097","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To investigate how nurses' implicit and explicit attitudes towards people with disabilities (PWD) compare to (1) other healthcare providers and (2) non-healthcare providers.

Method: We present an analysis of secondary data from the publicly available disability Implicit Association Test (IAT). We compare the explicit and implicit attitudes towards PWD for (1) nurses (n = 24,545), (2) other healthcare providers (n = 57,818) and (3) non-healthcare providers (n = 547,966) for a total of 630,238 respondents, between 2006 and 2021.

Data sources: We use publicly available data for the Disability IAT from Open Science Framework repository of Project Implicit available at https://osf.io/tx5fi/.

Reporting: STROBE checklist.

Results: There is a distinct contrast between nurses' explicit and implicit attitudes. While nurses have more positive explicit attitudes towards PWD compared to other groups, they also have more negative implicit attitudes towards PWD. As such there is a contrast between nurses' stated (explicit) attitudes and their unconscious (implicit) attitudes towards PWD. Further, we find that implicit bias towards PWD-among all groups-has not improved over the 15 year period of our sample.

Conclusions: We present a contrast between nurses' explicit and implicit attitude towards PWD compared to non-healthcare providers. We posit that implicit bias is driven by a combination of workload and stress which drives nurses to unconscious modes of thinking more frequently.

Implications: We discuss three potential tools for improved educational praxis regarding treatment of PWD; (1) more PWD service user involvement, (2) the use of mindfulness techniques to reduce stress and (3) the use of patient contact simulation to promote education and understanding.

Patient or public contribution: There is no patient or public contribution.

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
"但你的真实想法是什么?使用内隐联想测试对比护士对残疾人的显性和隐性态度。
目的:调查护士对残疾人(PWD)的内隐和外显态度与(1)其他医疗服务提供者和(2)非医疗服务提供者的比较:我们对公开的残疾内隐关联测试(IAT)的二手数据进行了分析。我们比较了 2006 年至 2021 年间(1)护士(n = 24,545 人)、(2)其他医疗服务提供者(n = 57,818 人)和(3)非医疗服务提供者(n = 547,966 人)共 630,238 名受访者对残疾人的显性和隐性态度:我们使用的残疾 IAT 公开数据来自 "隐含项目 "的开放科学框架资料库,网址为 https://osf.io/tx5fi/.Reporting:STROBE核对表:护士的显性态度和隐性态度之间存在明显的反差。虽然与其他群体相比,护士对残疾人的显性态度更为积极,但他们对残疾人的隐性态度也更为消极。因此,护士对残疾人的明示(显性)态度和无意识(隐性)态度之间存在反差。此外,我们还发现,在 15 年的抽样调查中,所有群体对残疾人的隐性偏见都没有得到改善:我们发现,与非医疗服务提供者相比,护士对残疾人的显性和隐性态度形成了鲜明对比。我们认为,隐性偏见是由工作量和压力共同造成的,这促使护士更频繁地采用无意识的思维模式:我们讨论了改进残疾人治疗教育实践的三个潜在工具:(1)更多残疾人服务使用者的参与;(2)使用正念技术减轻压力;(3)使用模拟接触病人的方法促进教育和理解:病人或公众的贡献:没有病人或公众的贡献。
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
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which advances and supports the practice and discipline of nursing. The Journal also aims to promote the international exchange of ideas and experience that draws from the different cultures in which practice takes place. Further, JCN seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Emphasis is placed on promoting critical debate on the art and science of nursing practice. JCN is essential reading for anyone involved in nursing practice, whether clinicians, researchers, educators, managers, policy makers, or students. The development of clinical practice and the changing patterns of inter-professional working are also central to JCN''s scope of interest. Contributions are welcomed from other health professionals on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice. We publish high quality papers from across the methodological spectrum that make an important and novel contribution to the field of clinical nursing (regardless of where care is provided), and which demonstrate clinical application and international relevance.
期刊最新文献
'Towards a conceptualization of nurses' support of hospitalised patients' self-management-A modified Delphi study'. "But what do you really think?" Nurses' contrasting explicit and implicit attitudes towards people with disabilities using the implicit association test. Nursing standards, language and age as variables associated with clinical competence for nurses in long-term care facilities: A cross-sectional study. Factors related to nurses' beliefs regarding pain assessment in people living with dementia. Factors related to preoperative anxiety in older patients with sensory impairment: A cross-sectional study.
×
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