Influence
March 8, 2025

Implicit Racial Bias and Unintentional Harm in Vascular Care

Andrew Gonzalez, MD, JD, MPH

Published in the JAMA Surgery. Here is a link to the article.

Regenstrief Institute authors: Andrew Gonzalez, M.D., J.D., MPH

Importance

Implicit bias may influence physician treatment decisions and contribute to Black-White health disparities. There are limited data linking implicit bias with actual care delivery and outcomes.

Objective

To determine whether implicit racial bias is associated with potentially harmful surgical treatment selection for a cohort of patients with peripheral artery disease–related claudication.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study, linked with observational registry data, included eligible clinicians who participate in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) among 960 centers. The VQI includes academic medical centers, teaching hospitals, community hospitals, and private practices. Eligible participants included all vascular specialist VQI members (N = 2512), of whom 218 completed the race implicit association test (IAT) and were linkable to procedure-level data. The study was conducted between October 2021 and October 2022.

Exposure

Race IAT.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinician-level implicit bias results were linked to patient-level registry data of peripheral revascularization procedures performed for claudication. The adjusted odds of performance of any infrapopliteal procedure by specialist implicit bias and patient race were measured via mixed-effects logistic regression models. Implicit bias as a moderator of the association of infrapopliteal procedures for claudication and patient race with 1-year amputation was assessed as a secondary outcome.

Results 

Among 218 vascular specialists (mean [SD] age, 46 [9] years; 160 [73%] male), 157 (72%) had a pro-White bias. Black patients treated by a physician with pro-White bias had a significant increase in the odds of receiving an infrapopliteal procedure compared with the total sample (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.12-2.48). When treated by a specialist with pro-White bias, Black patients had increased odds of 1-year amputation, regardless of anatomic location treated, compared with White patients (AOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.20-4.55). Conversely, Black patients treated by a specialist with no bias had similar odds of an infrapopliteal procedure (AOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68-1.26) as the full patient sample and similar odds of 1-year amputation (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.33-4.99) as White patients.

Conclusions and Relevance 

These findings indicate that implicit bias is associated with potentially harmful infrapopliteal procedures for Black patients and contributes to Black-White outcome disparities in the US. 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 influence of implicit bias.

Authors:

Corey A Kalbaugh 1, Erika T Beidelman 1, Kerry A Howard 2 3, Brian Witrick 2, Ashley Clark 4, Katharine L McGinigle 5, Samantha Minc 6, Olamide Alabi 7, Caitlin W Hicks 8, Andrew A Gonzalez 9 10, Crystal W Cené 11, Samuel Cykert 12

Affiliations:

1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington.

2Department of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.

3Center for Public Health Modeling and Response, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.

4Center for Survey Research and O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington.

5Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.

6Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, West Virginia School of Medicine, Morgantown.

7Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.

8Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

9Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine; Indianapolis.

10Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana.

11Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego Health, La Jolla.

12Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, School of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.

Partners

Related News

Implications of Increased Medicare Advantage Enrollment for Access to Kidney Transplant Waitlisting

Published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Here is a link to the article. Regenstrief Institute authors:

photo showing an at-home dialysis machine

National study evaluates the electricity cost burden of in-home medical equipment

Monthly bills can increase up to 40 percent In the United States, the market for durable medical equipment (DME)

AGS 2025 Conference image

Regenstrief Institute researchers to present at AGS 2025 annual scientific meeting

Researchers from the IU Center for Aging Research at Regenstrief Institute will join national experts May 8-10, 2025, in