No abstract

Purpose Critical review of institutional policies is necessary to identify and eliminate structural discrimination in medical schools. Dress code policies are well known to facilitate discrimination in other settings. Methods In this critical policy analysis, the authors used qualitative inquiry guided by feminist critical policy analysis (FCPA) and critical race feminism (CRF) frameworks to understand how Canadian undergraduate medical school dress code policies may contribute to discrimination and a hostile culture for marginalised groups. Dress code policies were obtained from 14 of 17 Canadian medical schools in September 2021. Deductive content analysis of dress codes was performed independently and in parallel by all four members of a racially diverse study team using Edwards and Marshalls' established framework for applying FCPA and CRF to dress code policy statements. Inductive content analysis was used to classify statements that fell outside this framework. Using a historical and contemporary legal understanding of how dress code policies have been used to discriminate against marginalised groups, the authors analysed how recommendations or restrictions may contribute to discrimination of marginalised medical students. Results Fourteen dress code policies were analysed. Overall, there were five feminine‐coded restrictions for every one masculine‐coded restriction (n = 77/213 and n = 16/213, respectively). Some policies prohibited feminine‐coded items (e.g. perfumes and bracelets) while specifically allowing masculine‐coded items (e.g. cologne and watches). A discourse of ‘professionalism’ based on patient preferences prioritised Eurocentric patriarchal norms for appearance, potentially penalising racially and culturally diverse students. Most policies did not include a policy for appeals or accommodations. Conclusion Canadian undergraduate medical school dress code policies overregulate women and gender, racially and culturally diverse students by explicitly and implicitly enforcing white patriarchal social norms. Administrators should apply best practices to these policies to avoid discrimination and a hostile culture to marginalised groups.

ObjectiveRecent deaths of Indigenous patients in the Canadian healthcare system have been attributed to structural and interpersonal racism. Experiences of interpersonal racism by Indigenous physicians and patients have been well characterised, but the source of this interpersonal bias has not been as well studied. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of explicit and implicit interpersonal anti-Indigenous biases among Albertan physicians.Design and settingThis cross-sectional survey measuring demographic information and explicit and implicit anti-Indigenous biases was distributed in September 2020 to all practising physicians in Alberta, Canada.Participants375 practising physicians with an active medical licence.OutcomesExplicit anti-Indigenous bias, measured by two feeling thermometer methods: participants slid an indicator on a thermometer to indicate their preference for white people (full preference is scored 100) or Indigenous people (full preference, 0), and then participants indicated how favourably they felt toward Indigenous people (100, maximally favourable; 0, maximally unfavourable). Implicit bias was measured using an Indigenous-European implicit association test (negative scores suggest preference for European (white) faces). Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare bias across physician demographics, including intersectional identities of race and gender identity.Main resultsMost of the 375 participants were white cisgender women (40.3%; n=151). The median age of participants was 46–50 years. 8.3% of participants felt unfavourably toward Indigenous people (n=32 of 375) and 25.0% preferred white people to Indigenous people (n=32 of 128). Median scores did not differ by gender identity, race or intersectional identities. White cisgender men physicians had the greatest implicit preferences compared with other groups (−0.59 (IQR −0.86 to –0.25); n=53; p<0.001). Free-text responses discussed ‘reverse racism’ and expressed discomfort with survey questions addressing bias and racism.ConclusionsExplicit anti-Indigenous bias was present among Albertan physicians. Concerns about ‘reverse racism’ targeting white people and discomfort discussing racism may act as barriers to addressing these biases. About two-thirds of respondents had implicit anti-Indigenous bias. These results corroborate the validity of patient reports of anti-Indigenous bias in healthcare and emphasise the need for effective intervention.

Background Structural and interpersonal anti-Indigenous racism is prevalent in Canadian healthcare. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on medical schools to address anti-Indigenous bias in students. We measured the prevalence of interpersonal anti-Indigenous bias among medical school applicants to understand how the medical school selection process selects for or against students with high levels of bias. Methods All applicants to a single university in the 2020–2021 admissions cycle were invited to participate. Explicit anti-Indigenous bias was measured using two sliding scale thermometers. The first asked how participants felt about Indigenous people (from 0, indicating ‘cold/unfavourable’ to 100, indicating ‘warm/favourable’) and the second asked whether participants preferred white (scored 100) or Indigenous people (scored 0). Participants then completed an implicit association test examining preferences for European or Indigenous faces (negative time latencies suggest preference for European faces). Explicit and implicit anti-Indigenous biases were compared by applicant demographics (including gender and racial identity), application status (offered an interview, offered admission, accepted a position), and compared to undergraduate medical and mathematics students. Results There were 595 applicant respondents (32.4% response rate, 64.2% cisgender women, 55.3% white). Applicants felt warmly toward Indigenous people (median 96 (IQR 80–100)), had no explicit preference for white or Indigenous people (median 50 (IQR 37–55), and had mild implicit preference for European faces (− 0.22 ms (IQR -0.54, 0.08 ms)). There were demographic differences associated with measures of explicit and implicit bias. Applicants who were offered admission had warmer feelings toward Indigenous people and greater preference for Indigenous people compared to those were not successful. Conclusions Medical school applicants did not have strong interpersonal explicit and implicit anti-Indigenous biases. Outlier participants with strong biases were not offered interviews or admission to medical school.

No abstract