Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test

Abstract Background With an increasing array of innovations and research emerging from low-income countries there is a growing recognition that even high-income countries could learn from these contexts. It is well known that the source of a product influences perception of that product, but little...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Matthew Harris, James Macinko, Geronimo Jimenez, Pricila Mullachery
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2017-11-01
Series:Globalization and Health
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-017-0304-y
id doaj-ca6c442de8c642d885cb15838619212b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ca6c442de8c642d885cb15838619212b2020-11-24T21:43:30ZengBMCGlobalization and Health1744-86032017-11-011311910.1186/s12992-017-0304-yMeasuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association TestMatthew Harris0James Macinko1Geronimo Jimenez2Pricila Mullachery3Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College LondonUCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Center for Health SciencesCentre for Population Health Sciences (CePHaS), Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological UniversityNYU College of Global Public HealthAbstract Background With an increasing array of innovations and research emerging from low-income countries there is a growing recognition that even high-income countries could learn from these contexts. It is well known that the source of a product influences perception of that product, but little research has examined whether this applies also in evidence-based medicine and decision-making. In order to examine likely barriers to learning from low-income countries, this study uses established methods in cognitive psychology to explore whether healthcare professionals and researchers implicitly associate good research with rich countries more so than with poor countries. Methods Computer-based Implicit Association Test (IAT) distributed to healthcare professionals and researchers. Stimuli representing Rich Countries were chosen from OECD members in the top ten (>$36,000 per capita) World Bank rankings and Poor Countries were chosen from the bottom thirty (<$1000 per capita) countries by GDP per capita, in both cases giving attention to regional representation. Stimuli representing Research were descriptors of the motivation (objective/biased), value (useful/worthless), clarity (precise/vague), process (transparent/dishonest), and trustworthiness (credible/unreliable) of research. IAT results are presented as a Cohen’s d statistic. Quantile regression was used to assess the contribution of covariates (e.g. age, sex, country of origin) to different values of IAT responses that correspond to different levels of implicit bias. Poisson regression was used to model dichotomized responses to the explicit bias item. Results Three hundred twenty one tests were completed in a four-week period between March and April 2015. The mean Implicit Association Test result (a standardized mean relative latency between congruent and non-congruent categories) for the sample was 0.57 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.61) indicating that on average our sample exhibited moderately strong implicit associations between Rich Countries and Good Research. People over 40 years of age were less likely to exhibit pro-poor implicit associations, and being a peer reviewer contributes to a more pro-poor association. Conclusions The majority of our participants associate Good Research with Rich Countries, compared to Poor Countries. Implicit associations such as these might disfavor research from poor countries in research evaluation, evidence-based medicine and diffusion of innovations.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-017-0304-yImplicit association testBiasResearch evaluationStereotypesReverse innovation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Matthew Harris
James Macinko
Geronimo Jimenez
Pricila Mullachery
spellingShingle Matthew Harris
James Macinko
Geronimo Jimenez
Pricila Mullachery
Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test
Globalization and Health
Implicit association test
Bias
Research evaluation
Stereotypes
Reverse innovation
author_facet Matthew Harris
James Macinko
Geronimo Jimenez
Pricila Mullachery
author_sort Matthew Harris
title Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test
title_short Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test
title_full Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test
title_fullStr Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test
title_full_unstemmed Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test
title_sort measuring the bias against low-income country research: an implicit association test
publisher BMC
series Globalization and Health
issn 1744-8603
publishDate 2017-11-01
description Abstract Background With an increasing array of innovations and research emerging from low-income countries there is a growing recognition that even high-income countries could learn from these contexts. It is well known that the source of a product influences perception of that product, but little research has examined whether this applies also in evidence-based medicine and decision-making. In order to examine likely barriers to learning from low-income countries, this study uses established methods in cognitive psychology to explore whether healthcare professionals and researchers implicitly associate good research with rich countries more so than with poor countries. Methods Computer-based Implicit Association Test (IAT) distributed to healthcare professionals and researchers. Stimuli representing Rich Countries were chosen from OECD members in the top ten (>$36,000 per capita) World Bank rankings and Poor Countries were chosen from the bottom thirty (<$1000 per capita) countries by GDP per capita, in both cases giving attention to regional representation. Stimuli representing Research were descriptors of the motivation (objective/biased), value (useful/worthless), clarity (precise/vague), process (transparent/dishonest), and trustworthiness (credible/unreliable) of research. IAT results are presented as a Cohen’s d statistic. Quantile regression was used to assess the contribution of covariates (e.g. age, sex, country of origin) to different values of IAT responses that correspond to different levels of implicit bias. Poisson regression was used to model dichotomized responses to the explicit bias item. Results Three hundred twenty one tests were completed in a four-week period between March and April 2015. The mean Implicit Association Test result (a standardized mean relative latency between congruent and non-congruent categories) for the sample was 0.57 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.61) indicating that on average our sample exhibited moderately strong implicit associations between Rich Countries and Good Research. People over 40 years of age were less likely to exhibit pro-poor implicit associations, and being a peer reviewer contributes to a more pro-poor association. Conclusions The majority of our participants associate Good Research with Rich Countries, compared to Poor Countries. Implicit associations such as these might disfavor research from poor countries in research evaluation, evidence-based medicine and diffusion of innovations.
topic Implicit association test
Bias
Research evaluation
Stereotypes
Reverse innovation
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-017-0304-y
work_keys_str_mv AT matthewharris measuringthebiasagainstlowincomecountryresearchanimplicitassociationtest
AT jamesmacinko measuringthebiasagainstlowincomecountryresearchanimplicitassociationtest
AT geronimojimenez measuringthebiasagainstlowincomecountryresearchanimplicitassociationtest
AT pricilamullachery measuringthebiasagainstlowincomecountryresearchanimplicitassociationtest
_version_ 1725913695619383296