Acting Wisely: Eliminating Negative Bias in Medical Education-Part 1: The Fundamentals.

Bias is a ubiquitous problem in human functioning. It has plagued medical decision making, making physicians prone to errors of perception and judgment. Racial, gender, ethnic, and religious negative biases infest physicians' perception and cognition, causing errors of judgment and behavior that are damaging. In Part 1 of this series of 2 papers, the authors address the problem of harmful bias, the science of cognition, and what is known about how bias functions in human perception and information processing. They lay the groundwork for an approach to reducing negative bias through awareness, reflection, and bias mitigation, an approach in which negative biases can be transformed-by education, experience, practice, and relationships-into positive biases toward one another. The authors propose wisdom as a conceptual framework for imagining a different way of educating medical students. They discuss fundamental cognitive, affective, and reflective components of wisdom-based education. They also review the skills of awareness, using debiasing strategies, compassion, fostering positive emotion, and reflection that are inherent to a wisdom-based approach to eliminating the negative effects of bias in medical education. In Part 2, the authors answer a key question: How can medical educators do better? They describe the interpersonal, structural, and cultural elements supportive of a wisdom-based learning environment, a culture of respect and inclusion in medical education.

Acting Wisely: Eliminating Negative Bias in Medical Education-Part 2: How Can We Do Better?

In Part 1 of this 2-article series, the authors reviewed the problem of unmitigated bias in medical education and proposed a wisdom-based framework for a different way of educating medical students. In this article, Part 2, the authors answer a key question: How can medical educators do better? Is a bias-free environment possible? The answer to the latter question likely is "no." In fact, having a zero-bias goal in mind may blind educators and students to the implicit biases that affect physicians' decisions and actions. Biases appear to be a part of how the human brain works. This article explores ways to neutralize their destructive effects by: (1) increasing awareness of personal biases; (2) using mitigation strategies to protect against the undesirable effects of those biases; (3) working to change some negative biases, particularly learned biases; and (4) fostering positive biases toward others. The authors describe the concrete actions-interpersonal, structural, and cultural actions-that can be taken to reduce negative bias and its destructive effects.

Daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: clinical predictors of outcome in a multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Randomized controlled trials support the antidepressant efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS); however, there is individual variability in the magnitude of response. Examination of response predictors has been hampered by methodological limitations such as small sample sizes and single-site study designs. Data from a multisite sham-controlled trial of the antidepressant efficacy of TMS provided an opportunity to examine predictors of acute outcome. An open-label extension for patients who failed to improve provided the opportunity for confirmatory analysis. Treatment was administered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at 10 pulses per second, 120% of motor threshold, for a total of 3000 pulses per day. Change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale after 4 weeks was the primary efficacy outcome. A total of 301 patients with nonpsychotic unipolar major depression at 23 centers were randomized to active or sham TMS. Univariate predictor analyses showed that the degree of prior treatment resistance in the current episode was a predictor of positive treatment outcome in both the controlled study and the open-label extension trial. In the randomized trial, shorter duration of current episode was also associated with a better outcome. In the open-label extension study, absence of anxiety disorder comorbidity was associated with an improved outcome, but duration of current episode was not. The number of prior treatment failures was the strongest predictor for positive response to acute treatment with TMS. Shorter duration of current illness and lack of anxiety comorbidity may also confer an increased likelihood of good antidepressant response to TMS.