Attitude of Health Personnel

Abstract

The attitude of health personnel is a type of attitude, a learned evaluative disposition — which MeSH classifies under behavior and behavior mechanisms — that clinicians hold toward patients, conditions, treatments, and their own roles. Because a clinical encounter compresses judgment into minutes, these evaluations bias diagnosis, shape how pain is treated, and predict whether a patient returns. This article develops it as an attitude-behavior problem: how provider evaluations form, how implicit and explicit components diverge, how the theory of planned behavior links them to action, and how stigma and burnout corrode them. What stays contested is how tightly implicit-association scores predict any individual clinician's behavior. Three interactive demonstrations let the reader gate implicit bias by cognitive load, manipulate an intention model, and compare anti-stigma interventions.

Keywords: attitude of health personnel, implicit bias, theory of planned behavior, stigma, burnout

The attitude of health personnel is the applied edge of attitude research: the place where a century of work on how evaluations form and guide behavior meets a setting in which the behavior is someone else's health. A physician who implicitly associates a patient group with non-adherence, a nurse who has depersonalized patients after months of exhaustion, and a trainee who has absorbed a specialty's casual contempt for a diagnosis are all carrying evaluative dispositions that were never entered on a chart and never deliberately chosen, yet that steer real decisions. Understanding them requires the cognitive account of attitudes — structure, dual process, and the conditions under which each process wins — rather than an appeal to good or bad intentions.

What the Attitude of Health Personnel Is

An attitude, in the cognitive tradition, is a summary evaluation of an object stored in memory and retrieved when the object is encountered (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The attitude of health personnel is that same construct with the evaluating agent fixed — a clinician, nurse, technician, pharmacist, or trainee — and the attitude object drawn from the clinical world: a patient or patient group, a disease, a treatment, a guideline, or the professional role itself. MeSH places the descriptor simultaneously under Attitude in the behavioral-mechanisms tree and under Delivery of Health Care in the health-care tree, which captures its dual citizenship: it is a psychological construct and a determinant of service delivery at once.

What makes the construct consequential rather than merely descriptive is the structure attitudes are now known to have. An evaluation is not a single stored number. It has an explicit component — the appraisal a person can report and endorse — and an implicit component — an association activated automatically on encountering the object, measurable by reaction-time methods such as the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The two correlate weakly and can point in opposite directions. A clinician may explicitly hold that all patients deserve equal care and simultaneously carry an implicit association that a particular group is less adherent or more drug-seeking. Neither component is the real attitude; both are real, and which one drives behavior depends on the conditions of the moment.

Those conditions are the heart of the cognitive story. Automatic associations dominate when the person is under time pressure, cognitive load, or fatigue, and when motivation or opportunity to deliberate is low — precisely the standing conditions of clinical work. Deliberate appraisal dominates when the clinician has the motivation and the opportunity to retrieve and apply explicit standards. This is why the attitude of health personnel cannot be managed by exhorting providers to hold the right beliefs: the right explicit beliefs are often already present, and the problem is a process one — the automatic route winning when the system is overloaded. Figure 1 shows the two routes converging on a single clinical judgment, with the balance between them set by a load-and-time-pressure gate.

Types of Attitude of Health Personnel

MeSH treats the attitude of health personnel not as a single evaluation but as a family of more specific provider attitudes, organized as narrower descriptors beneath it. Three are catalogued as direct children. Because MeSH is an indexing vocabulary rather than a psychological taxonomy, these subtypes are a classification of how the literature is tagged, not a claim that provider attitudes decompose cleanly into three orthogonal kinds; a single burned-out clinician may exhibit all three at once. Each child names a distinct, well-studied manifestation. None yet has its own article on this site, so the terms below are named but not linked.

The three subtypes differ in their attitude object — alerts, the self, and the patient — but share the structure developed above. Each has an automatic and a deliberate component, each is more likely to be acted on when the clinician is overloaded, and each is measurable by the explicit and implicit methods that attitude research has built. Alert fatigue is the clearest illustration that provider attitudes are not confined to people: a decision-support system that cries wolf trains a genuinely negative, genuinely automatic evaluation that then suppresses responses to the rare true alarm.

The Explicit–Implicit Divide in Clinical Judgment

The strongest evidence that provider attitudes matter clinically comes from studies that measure the implicit component directly. In a widely cited experiment, physicians completed a race Implicit Association Test and then read a vignette of a patient presenting with symptoms of acute coronary syndrome; the stronger a physician's implicit pro-White association, the less likely they were to recommend thrombolysis for a Black patient — even though the same physicians' explicitly reported attitudes showed no racial preference (Green et al., 2007). The dissociation is the point: the explicit measure predicted nothing, and the implicit measure predicted a consequential treatment decision.

The pattern generalizes. A systematic review of implicit bias in health-care professionals found that the large majority of studies detected a pro-White or pro-light-skin implicit bias of a magnitude comparable to the general population, and that this bias was related to poorer patient–provider interaction and, in several studies, to treatment decisions (FitzGerald & Hurst, 2017). A parallel review focused on racial and ethnic bias reached the same conclusion and documented links to diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and the number of questions providers asked (Hall et al., 2015), and a decade-spanning review of IAT studies in providers confirmed that implicit bias is pervasive while noting that the link to actual clinical outcomes, though present, is heterogeneous across studies (Maina et al., 2018).

Experimental vignette work isolates the mechanism. When medical students assessed matched clinical vignettes that varied only in the patient's race and social class, their unconscious bias — measured by IAT — was associated with their vignette-based clinical assessments, demonstrating the effect in a controlled design rather than an observational one (Haider et al., 2011). Observational work shows the downstream consequence: clinicians with stronger implicit race bias had medical visits rated by patients as less patient-centered and were rated lower on interpersonal care (Cooper et al., 2012). The theoretical synthesis of this literature argues that these biases operate 'under the radar' of clinical decision-making — not through overt prejudice but through the ordinary, unexamined operation of automatic cognition under the load of clinical work (Dovidio & Fiske, 2012).

Patient race is not the only object. A foundational study showed that, controlling for clinical factors, physicians' perceptions of patients were shaped by the patients' race and socioeconomic status — physicians rated lower-SES and minority patients more negatively on compliance, intelligence, and the likelihood of risk behavior (van Ryn & Burke, 2000). These perceptions are provider attitudes in exactly the sense defined above: stored evaluations, retrieved on contact, that then condition the encounter.

Why the implicit route sometimes governs a judgment and sometimes does not is the question Fazio's MODE model — Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants — was built to answer. The model holds that an attitude guides behavior through a spontaneous, automatic route unless the person has both the motivation and the opportunity to engage in deliberate processing, in which case a controlled route can correct or override the automatic one (Fazio, 1990). In clinical terms, opportunity is time and spare cognitive capacity, and motivation is the clinician's active concern to be accurate and fair; when a crowded shift strips away opportunity, the automatic route governs by default no matter how egalitarian the clinician's explicit values. This is the mechanism the demonstration below makes concrete: vary a clinician's implicit and explicit attitudes, then raise or lower motivation and time pressure to watch which route controls the predicted judgment.

active route: automatic — the implicit association governs

A provider's decision is a blend of an automatic association and a deliberately endorsed attitude, weighted by control — the product of motivation and the opportunity to deliberate, where opportunity falls as time pressure rises. With a strong implicit association (0.70) but an egalitarian explicit attitude (0.10), heavy time pressure (0.75) leaves control at just 0.20, so the expressed bias is 0.58 — close to the implicit value, not the endorsed one. Relieve the time pressure and control rises, handing the decision back to the endorsed attitude (Dovidio & Fiske, 2012).

Linking Attitude to Action: The Theory of Planned Behavior

Measuring a provider's attitude is only useful if the attitude predicts what the provider does, and the dominant framework for that link is the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). It holds that behavior is driven by behavioral intention, and that intention is in turn a weighted function of three inputs: the person's attitude toward the behavior (its evaluated desirability), the subjective norm (the perceived social pressure to perform it), and perceived behavioral control (the person's sense that the behavior is within their power). Applied to clinical work, the behavior might be performing hand hygiene before every contact, discussing weight sensitively with a patient who has obesity, or offering thrombolysis per guideline.

The framework reframes the attitude-of-health-personnel problem usefully. A provider's private evaluation of a behavior is only one of three determinants of intention; a clinician with a positive attitude toward a guideline may still not intend to follow it if the perceived norm on the unit is against it or if they feel they lack the control — the time, the authority, the resources — to carry it out. This is why interventions that target only attitudes often fail: they move one input while the other two hold the intention down. It also explains why the attitude–behavior correlation is routinely imperfect, a gap first documented in classic social psychology and formalized by the intervening role of intention and control.

weights w_A = 0.45, w_SN = 0.25, w_PBC = 0.30 — predicted outcome: likely to act

Intention to perform a clinical behavior is a weighted combination of the provider's own attitude, the perceived unit norm, and the sense of control over the behavior. Set a favorable attitude (A = 6), a weak norm (SN = 4), and middling control (PBC = 5) and the intention is 5.20; raising the norm from 4 to 6 adds more to intention than raising the already-high attitude from 6 to 7, because the norm moves further — so the most efficient lever is often not the provider's own evaluation (Ajzen, 1991).

Stigma as a Provider Attitude

Some of the most consequential provider attitudes are organized around specific stigmatized conditions. Stigma is a negative evaluation attached to a group or condition, and when a clinician holds it, it operates as an attitude with all the structure already described — explicit and implicit, automatic under load. The mental-illness case is the best studied. Providers, including mental-health professionals, hold measurable stigmatizing attitudes toward people with serious mental illness, and these attitudes interfere with care: they lower the quality of the therapeutic relationship, bias diagnosis toward the psychiatric label (diagnostic overshadowing), and deter patients from disclosing symptoms or continuing treatment (Corrigan, 2004).

Obesity is a second well-documented case. A review of the stigma of obesity found pervasive negative attitudes toward patients with obesity among physicians, nurses, and medical students — attributions of laziness, non-compliance, and weak willpower — with downstream effects on the quality of care offered and on whether patients seek care at all (Puhl & Heuer, 2009). The weight-stigma literature is a reminder that provider stigma is not confined to psychiatric conditions; it attaches to any group the surrounding culture devalues, and the clinic inherits that evaluation.

Stigma is also the provider attitude with the clearest intervention evidence, examined in the Current Directions section below.

after 6 sessions — contact: 22.3, education: 48.7, control: 100.0

Stigmatizing attitudes fall across an intervention, and social contact with members of the stigmatized group generally outperforms education alone: at six sessions the modeled stigma score drops to 22.3 under contact but only to 48.7 under education, while a no-contact control stays flat. The curves illustrate the short- to medium-term pattern of the evidence; durable, long-term maintenance is the weaker part of that evidence (Thornicroft et al., 2016).

Burnout as a Mechanism of Attitude Change

Provider attitudes are not fixed traits; they are shaped by the conditions of work, and the best-characterized corrosive condition is burnout. Burnout is a syndrome with three components — emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment — operationalized by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). The middle component, depersonalization, is itself an attitude change: it is the development of a detached, cynical, and dehumanizing evaluative stance toward the people one serves. A clinician does not usually begin a career with negative patient attitudes; sustained emotional exhaustion produces them as a defensive adaptation.

This matters for the attitude-of-health-personnel construct because it specifies a causal pathway, not just a correlation. Where implicit-bias research asks what evaluations a provider carries into the encounter, burnout research asks how the encounters themselves, accumulated under chronic overload, manufacture negative evaluations. The two literatures converge on the same practical lever: reducing cognitive and emotional load both suppresses the automatic expression of pre-existing bias and slows the manufacture of new negative attitudes.

Worked Example

Consider a hospitalist deciding whether they intend to have a careful, guideline-concordant conversation about weight management with a patient who has obesity. We score the three theory-of-planned-behavior inputs on a 1–7 scale from the clinician's own appraisals: a fairly positive personal attitude toward the behavior, A = 6; a weak subjective norm, because the unit culture treats such conversations as optional, SN = 4; and a middling sense of control, because the clinic visit is short, PBC = 5.

The theory treats intention as a weighted sum of the three, with weights that sum to one and that reflect how much each input matters for this behavior. Taking attitude as the heaviest driver here (w = 0.45), with norm (w = 0.25) and control (w = 0.30) lighter, the predicted intention is:

I = 0.45 × 6 + 0.25 × 4 + 0.30 × 5 = 2.70 + 1.00 + 1.50 = 5.20 (on the 1–7 scale).

Table 2 shows why targeting the right input matters. Raising the clinician's personal attitude from 6 to the maximum 7 adds only 0.45 to intention; but raising the subjective norm from 4 to 6 — the kind of change a unit-level culture intervention produces — adds 0.50, more than the attitude change, despite norm carrying a smaller weight, because it moves further. An intervention that preaches to an already-convinced clinician moves the smallest lever available.

The arithmetic is the article's argument in miniature: a provider's private evaluation is one input among three, and the most efficient intervention is often not the one aimed at the attitude itself.

Discussion

The attitude of health personnel is best understood as a case study in why attitudes predict behavior imperfectly and conditionally. Three decades of attitude research converge on a model in which evaluations have separable implicit and explicit components, in which the implicit component gains control under load, and in which even a well-aligned attitude reaches behavior only through intention and perceived control. The clinical setting is an almost adversarial test of that model: it maximizes load, compresses time, and raises the stakes of the automatic route winning.

The evidence reviewed here is strong on the existence of provider bias and stigma and on their association with worse interaction and, in several controlled designs, worse decisions. It is more heterogeneous on the size and consistency of the link from a measured attitude to a hard clinical outcome, and honest reviews say so. This is not a reason to dismiss the construct; it is the ordinary situation for any attitude–behavior link, where intention and control intervene and where any single measured attitude is one input among many. It is a reason to prefer interventions that change the process and the context — load, norms, control — over interventions that merely attempt to install the correct explicit belief, which providers very often already hold.

Current Directions

The most active and practically important research front is intervention. The anti-stigma literature is the furthest developed: a major review of interventions to reduce mental-health-related stigma and discrimination found that, in the short to medium term, both education-based and social-contact-based interventions produce real reductions in stigmatizing attitudes, with social contact generally the more effective of the two, though the evidence for long-term maintenance is weaker (Thornicroft et al., 2016). This directly motivates the anti-stigma demonstration above and establishes that provider attitudes are modifiable, not fixed.

For implicit bias specifically, a recent synthesis of the evidence and research needs concludes that single-session implicit-bias trainings have little durable effect on behavior, and that the field is moving toward structural and process interventions — reducing time pressure and cognitive load, standardizing decisions to limit the discretion through which bias operates, and increasing accountability — rather than relying on awareness alone (Vela et al., 2022). The convergence of the burnout and bias literatures on load reduction is the clearest current direction: the same structural changes that protect clinicians from manufacturing new negative attitudes also suppress the automatic expression of the attitudes they already carry.

Common Misconceptions

A provider who sincerely believes in equal care cannot be biased.

Explicit and implicit attitudes are separable and weakly correlated; a clinician can genuinely endorse egalitarian values and still act on automatic associations, which is exactly the dissociation documented when explicit measures predict nothing but implicit measures predict treatment decisions (Green et al., 2007).

Implicit-bias training fixes the problem.

Single-session awareness trainings have little durable effect on clinical behavior; the current evidence favors structural and process changes — reducing load, standardizing decisions, increasing accountability — over awareness alone (Vela et al., 2022).

Negative attitudes toward patients mean a provider is a bad person.

Depersonalization is often a product of burnout — a defensive adaptation to chronic emotional exhaustion — rather than a stable character flaw, which is why it is addressed by changing working conditions, not by moral exhortation (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).

Stigma is a patient problem, not a provider problem.

Health personnel, including specialists in the relevant conditions, hold measurable stigmatizing attitudes that interfere with care and deter patients from seeking and continuing treatment (Corrigan, 2004).

Glossary

Alert fatigue.

A habituated, negative provider attitude toward clinical warnings, formed by repeated exposure to low-value alerts, which suppresses responses to genuine alarms.

Attitude object.

The target of an evaluation — for health personnel, a patient, group, disease, treatment, guideline, or professional role.

Attitude.

A learned, summary evaluation of an object, stored in memory and retrieved on encountering the object.

Behavioral intention.

A person's readiness to perform a behavior; the proximal cognitive cause of action in the theory of planned behavior.

Burnout.

A work-stress syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment.

Cognitive load.

The demand on limited working-memory and attentional resources; high load shifts judgment toward automatic processing.

Depersonalization.

The burnout component consisting of a detached, cynical, dehumanizing attitude toward the people one serves.

Diagnostic overshadowing.

The misattribution of a patient's physical symptoms to a known psychiatric or intellectual condition, biasing diagnosis.

Explicit attitude.

The component of an evaluation that a person can consciously report and deliberately endorse.

Implicit association test (IAT).

A reaction-time method that infers the strength of automatic associations from the speed of categorizing paired concepts.

Implicit attitude.

The component of an evaluation activated automatically on encountering the object, often outside awareness and control.

Perceived behavioral control.

In the theory of planned behavior, a person's sense that performing the behavior is within their power.

Stigma.

A negative evaluation attached to a group or condition that marks its bearers as discredited or devalued.

Subjective norm.

In the theory of planned behavior, the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a behavior.

Theory of planned behavior.

A model in which behavioral intention, and hence behavior, is a weighted function of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control.

Key Researchers

Lisa A. Cooper

(Johns Hopkins University). Physician and health-equity researcher who measured clinicians' implicit race attitudes and linked them to the quality of medical-visit communication and patients' ratings of interpersonal care. Wikipedia · Faculty

Patrick W. Corrigan

(1956–2026; Illinois Institute of Technology). Foremost researcher on the stigma of mental illness, who showed how public and self-stigma interfere with help-seeking and how provider attitudes blunt care. Wikipedia · Scholar · Faculty

John F. Dovidio

(Yale University). Social psychologist whose work on aversive racism and automatic intergroup bias framed how clinicians' unexamined attitudes shape care, and who co-authored the account of bias operating 'under the radar' of clinical decision-making. Wikipedia · Scholar · Faculty

Chloë FitzGerald

(formerly University of Geneva). Ethicist and first author of the most-cited systematic review of implicit bias in health-care professionals, which established the pervasiveness of the effect across the clinical literature. Faculty

Christina Maslach

(b. 1946; University of California, Berkeley). Defined and operationalized job burnout and built the Maslach Burnout Inventory, locating depersonalization — a degraded attitude toward patients — as a core component of the syndrome. Wikipedia · Scholar · Faculty

Rebecca M. Puhl

(University of Connecticut). Leading researcher on weight stigma, documenting pervasive anti-fat attitudes among physicians, nurses, and medical trainees and their effect on care-seeking and treatment. Wikipedia · Wikidata · Faculty

Michelle van Ryn

(Oregon Health & Science University). Showed that patient race and socioeconomic status shape physicians' perceptions of patients, and advanced the cognitive account of how time pressure and cognitive load let provider stereotypes influence clinical judgment. Wikipedia · Wikidata · Scholar

Graham Thornicroft

(King's College London). Psychiatrist whose programme on mental-illness stigma and discrimination produced the evidence base for effective anti-stigma interventions among health professionals and the public. ORCID · Wikipedia · Wikidata · Scholar · Faculty

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the attitude of health personnel?

It is the evaluative disposition that a clinician, nurse, technician, or trainee holds toward a patient, group, disease, treatment, guideline, or their own professional role; it is the same psychological construct as any attitude, with the evaluating agent and the attitude object fixed to the clinical world (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

How is the attitude of health personnel a cognitive-psychology topic rather than just a medical-ethics one?

Because its mechanism is the cognitive structure of attitudes: a provider evaluation has an implicit, automatically activated component and an explicit, deliberately endorsed one, and which drives behavior is governed by the same processing conditions (time pressure, cognitive load, motivation, opportunity) that cognitive psychology studies in every attitude-behavior relationship (Dovidio & Fiske, 2012).

Can a provider be biased without being prejudiced?

Yes. Implicit bias is an automatic association that can diverge sharply from explicitly endorsed values; physicians showing no explicit racial preference can still have implicit associations that predict their treatment decisions (Green et al., 2007).

How are implicit provider attitudes measured?

Chiefly by reaction-time methods such as the Implicit Association Test, which infers the strength of an automatic association from how quickly a person categorizes paired concepts, revealing evaluations that self-report misses (Greenwald et al., 1998).

Why don't provider attitudes always predict provider behavior?

Because an attitude reaches behavior only through intention, which also depends on perceived social norms and perceived behavioral control; a clinician with a positive attitude may still not act if the unit norm is against it or if they lack the time and authority to carry it out (Ajzen, 1991).

What role does burnout play?

Burnout degrades provider attitudes through its depersonalization component, a detached and cynical stance toward patients that develops as a defensive adaptation to chronic emotional exhaustion rather than a fixed character trait (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).

Do anti-stigma and anti-bias interventions actually work?

Anti-stigma interventions work modestly in the short to medium term, with social contact generally outperforming education (Thornicroft et al., 2016); single-session implicit-bias trainings, by contrast, show little durable effect, and the field now favors structural changes that reduce load and standardize decisions (Vela et al., 2022).

Does provider attitude affect measurable patient outcomes?

It affects the clinical encounter reliably: biased clinicians have visits rated as less patient-centered (Cooper et al., 2012), and in several controlled designs it affects decisions (Haider et al., 2011), though reviews note the link to hard outcomes is heterogeneous across studies (Maina et al., 2018).

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Cooper, L. A., Roter, D. L., Carson, K. A., Beach, M. C., Sabin, J. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Inui, T. S. (2012). The associations of clinicians' implicit attitudes about race with medical visit communication and patient ratings of interpersonal care. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 979-987. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300558

Corrigan, P. W. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59(7), 614-625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614

Dovidio, J. F., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Under the radar: How unexamined biases in decision-making processes in clinical interactions can contribute to health care disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 945-952. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300601

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60318-4

FitzGerald, C., & Hurst, S. (2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8

Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(9), 1231-1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

Haider, A. H., Sexton, J., Sriram, N., Cooper, L. A., Efron, D. T., Swoboda, S., Villegas, C. V., Haut, E. R., Bonds, M., Pronovost, P. J., Lipsett, P. A., Freischlag, J. A., & Cornwell, E. E. (2011). Association of unconscious race and social class bias with vignette-based clinical assessments by medical students. JAMA, 306(9), 942-951. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1248

Hall, W. J., Chapman, M. V., Lee, K. M., Merino, Y. M., Thomas, T. W., Payne, B. K., Eng, E., Day, S. H., & Coyne-Beasley, T. (2015). Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 105(12), e60-e76. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302903

Maina, I. W., Belton, T. D., Ginzberg, S., Singh, A., & Johnson, T. J. (2018). A decade of studying implicit racial/ethnic bias in healthcare providers using the implicit association test. Social Science & Medicine, 199, 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.05.009

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity, 17(5), 941-964. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2008.636

Thornicroft, G., Mehta, N., Clement, S., Evans-Lacko, S., Doherty, M., Rose, D., Koschorke, M., Shidhaye, R., O'Reilly, C., & Henderson, C. (2016). Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mental-health-related stigma and discrimination. The Lancet, 387(10023), 1123-1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00298-6

van Ryn, M., & Burke, J. (2000). The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians' perceptions of patients. Social Science & Medicine, 50(6), 813-828. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00338-X

Vela, M. B., Erondu, A. I., Smith, N. A., Peek, M. E., Woodruff, J. N., & Chin, M. H. (2022). Eliminating explicit and implicit biases in health care: Evidence and research needs. Annual Review of Public Health, 43, 477-501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052620-103528