We conducted a randomized controlled trial of an individually-tailored, virtual perspective-taking intervention to reduce race and socioeconomic (SES) disparities in providers' pain treatment decisions. Physician residents and fellows (n=436) were recruited from across the United States for this two-part online study. Providers first completed a bias assessment task in which they made treatment decisions for virtual patients with chronic pain who varied by race (Black/White) and SES (low/high). Providers who demonstrated a treatment bias were randomized to the intervention or control group. The intervention consisted of personalized feedback about their bias, real-time dynamic interactions with virtual patients, and videos depicting how pain impacts the patients' lives. Treatment bias was re-assessed one week later. Compared to the control group, providers who received the tailored intervention had 85% lower odds of demonstrating a treatment bias against Black patients and 76% lower odds of demonstrating a treatment bias against low SES patients at follow-up. Providers who received the intervention for racial bias also showed increased compassion for patients compared to providers in the control condition. Group differences did not emerge for provider comfort in treating patients. Results suggest an online intervention that is tailored to providers according to their individual treatment biases, delivers feedback about these

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundVirtual patients have an established place in medical education but do virtual patient interviews train holistic clinicians or just diagnosticians? This study explored speech pathology students’ virtual patient interviews using WHO International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF).MethodsEighteen speech pathology students in their final year of training participated. Students interviewed virtual patients with dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) as part of their curriculum. Student questions and patient responses were coded using established ICF coding. Codes were tallied and compared under categories of body structures, body functions, activities/participation and environmental factors. Flesch Reading Ease was calculated as a measure of health literacy.ResultsConversational turns primarily focused on the ICF component—activity and participation in both student questions and virtual patient responses: 0.03% body structures, 30% body functions—swallowing, 7% body functions—associated, 43% activities/participation and 19% environmental factors. Personal factors such as gender, ethnicity, age or socio-economic situation were not mentioned by student or patient. Patients commented on social impact on self and/or family, sometimes in the absence of targeted student questions. Student and virtual patient Flesch Reading Ease scores were congruent.ConclusionSpeech pathology students naturally matched their virtual patient’s health-literacy level and asked a range of medical and daily living questions. Virtual patients readily offered social impact information to student questions. Computer science: healthcare teams should consider creating virtual patients who challenge students to practise asking sensitive questions and in doing so develop holistic thinkers with competent communication skills.