Biases in the evaluation of self-harm in patients with disability due to spinal cord injury

Abstract

Introduction

Suicide is a global problem and accurate assessment of risk for self-harm is critical. Even morally principled clinicians can manifest bias when assessing self-harm in patients with physical disabilities such as spinal cord injury (SCI). Assessment of self-harm is an obligation for health care clinicians and overestimating or underestimating risk may undermine a patient’s trust in their care, possibly leading to less engagement, increased apathy about having an interest in living, and less adherence to healthy treatment options.

Case presentation

Introduces readers to three biases that can impact decision-making regarding a patient with a disability when assessing the patient’s risk for self-harm: (1) ineffectual bias, (2) fragile friendliness bias, and (3) catastrophe bias. These preconceptions are derived from a mix of paternalism, projection, low expectations, pity, and infantilization. In this paper, we explain how each bias can affect clinical decision-making regarding diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and prevention for patients with SCI within a common case scenario. Readers can employ personal reflection and potential self-application when they encounter individuals with SCI in and outside clinical settings.

Discussion

Unchecked biases toward the disabled and patients with SCI can undermine ethical caregiving. Biases are habits of mind and thoughtful clinical and education interventions can improve clinical practice. The literature on health care bias with other minority groups is instructive for investigating biases related to patients with disabilities, and especially for clinicians outside of rehabilitation medicine.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Thorndike EL. A constant error in psychological ratings. J Appl Psychol. 1920;4:25–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Albisser Schleger H, Oehninger NR, Reiter-Theil S. Avoiding bias in medical ethical decision-making. Lessons to be learnt from psychology research. Med Health Care Philos. 2011;14:155–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-010-9263-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Zestcott CA, Blair IV, Stone J. Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2016;19:528–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216642029

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Blair IV, Steiner JF, Havranek EP. Unconscious (implicit) bias and health disparities: where do we go from here? Perm J. 2011;15:71–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dovidio JF, Fiske ST. Under the radar: how unexamined biases in decision-making processes in clinical interactions can contribute to health care disparities. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:945–52. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2011.300601

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gonzalez CM, Deno ML, Kintzer E, Marantz PR, Lypson ML, McKee MD. Patient perspectives on racial and ethnic implicit bias in clinical encounters: implications for curriculum development. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101:1669–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.05.016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Krahn GL, Walker DK, Correa-De-Araujo R. Persons with disabilities as an unrecognized health disparity population. Am J Public Health 2015;105(Suppl 2):S198–206. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Olkin R. Could you hold the door for me? Including disability in diversity. Cult Divers Ethn Minor Psychol. 2002;8(2):130–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Devine PG, Forscher PS, Austin AJ, Cox WT. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: a prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012;48:1267–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Suchman AL, Matthews DA. What makes the patient-doctor relationship therapeutic? Exploring the connexional dimension of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:125–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Abrantes-Pais Fde N, Friedman JK, Lovallo WR, Ross ED. Psychological or physiological: why are tetraplegic patients content? Neurology. 2007;69:261–7. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000262763.66023.be

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Devine PGPE. Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego: Academic; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    McConnell D, Hahn L, Savage A, Dube C, Park E. Suicidal ideation among adults with disability in western canada: a brief report. Community Ment Health J. 2016;52:519–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-015-9911-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Haque OSS, Stein MA. Humanizing clinical care for patients with disabilities. In: Cohen IG, Shachar C, Silvers A, Stein MA, editors. Beyond disadvantage: disability, law, and bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hahn H. The politics of physical differences: disability and discrimination. J Soc Issues. 1988;44:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1988.tb02047.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Park JH, Faulkner J, Schaller M. Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social behavior: prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical disabilities. J Nonverbal Behav. 2003;27:65–87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910408854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    FitzGerald C, Hurst S. Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gonzalez CM, Garba RJ, Liguori A, Marantz PR, McKee MD, Lypson ML. How to make or break implicit bias instruction: implications for curriculum development. Acad Med. 2018;93 (11S Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Research in Medical Education Sessions):S74–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sabin J, Nosek BA, Greenwald A, Rivara FP. Physicians’ implicit and explicit attitudes about race by MD race, ethnicity, and gender. J Health Care Poor Underserv. 2009;20:896–913. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.0.0185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hodgins G, McSherry ML, Gibbs EP, Brosco J, Harvey PD. 3.37 The Debbie Project: reducing bias toward persons with disabilities. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58:S206–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Galli G, Lenggenhager B, Scivoletto G, Molinari M, Pazzaglia M. Don’t look at my wheelchair! The plasticity of longlasting prejudice. Med Educ. 2015;49:1239–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kripke C. Patients with disabilities: avoiding unconscious bias when discussing goals of care. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96:192–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chapman EN, Kaatz A, Carnes M. Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:1504–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2441-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Blauwet CA. I use a wheelchair. And yes, i’m your doctor. New York Times; New York: NY; 2017.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maggi A. Budd.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Budd, M.A., Haque, O.S. & Stein, M.A. Biases in the evaluation of self-harm in patients with disability due to spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases 6, 43 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-020-0293-6

Download citation