An interventional study of CBTsim and bias documentary in Implicit Bias, sponsored by Washington State University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-21.
Sponsored by Washington State University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The overall goal of this project was to develop and evaluate Counter Bias Training Simulation (CBTsim) Healthcare - an anti-bias training program that is specific for healthcare professionals. First, a culturally diverse team developed CBTsim Healthcare scenarios based on an extensive review of the literature on healthcare disparities. Then, a randomized control trial was conducted with 91 nurses to test the effectiveness of CBTsim Healthcare. Nurses received approximately 2 hours of baseline testing, then 51 nurses (treatment group) received approximately 3 hours of CBTsim Healthcare training and the other 40 nurses (control group) watched a 90-minute documentary on bias, information which is more typical of current standard practice. Then, all 91 nurses received approximately 2 hours of post-intervention testing. Baseline testing included a demographic questionnaire, a prejudiced belief assessment scale, and three written patient care scenarios in which decisions and communications to the patient were documented. Post-intervention testing included a survey to assess engagement with the training, the same prejudiced belief assessment scale, and three different patient care scenarios. Three months after the intervention participants were surveyed to gather qualitative feedback on beliefs about training effectiveness and how it had impacted patient care. Finally, Press Ganey scores from the hospital (patient satisfaction with nursing care) were analyzed for a 3-month period before the intervention and again after the intervention to try and determine whether the training had a measurable impact on patient care in the hospital.
"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman because it often results in physical death." - Martin Luther King Jr. One cause of this injustice is bias in healthcare delivery resulting in minority health disparities. Biases that are explicit (such as blatant prejudice or bigotry) are rare among healthcare professionals, but implicit biases (unconscious ways in which beliefs, attitudes, and values influence perceptions of the world and the people in it) are systemic and widespread. Implicit bias is the unconscious or semiconscious attribution of particular qualities to members of a particular social group. For example, associating African Americans with criminality, LGBTQ+ members with perversion, or people suffering homelessness with drug seeking. Biases such as these can lead to damaged patient-clinician relationships (PCR), discriminate administration of treatment such as pain medication, and consequent health disparities that are extreme and inexcusable. Innovative methods for reducing the impact of implicit bias on PCR and consequent minority health disparities are critical.
The research team has developed Counter Bias Training Simulation (CBTsim), an innovative and unique training program that uses simulation to make trainees aware of implicit biases and learn to overcome or "counter" them. A version has been developed, tested, and demonstrated a reduction in bias for police officers. CBTsim has great relevance to healthcare, for which existing implicit bias trainings are typically lecture based, and may be ineffective at reducing the impact of bias on PCR. A health care version of CBTsim would differ from existing programs by integrating bias awareness and reduction into actual patient care and communication skills via simulation, and could have a revolutionary impact on reducing bias in PCR nationwide. As such, this study developed "CBTsim Healthcare" and evaluated its effectiveness at reducing bias in PCR and subsequent minority healthcare disparities.
This study was jointly conducted in the Washington State University College of Nursing Simulation Lab (aims 1 and 2) and Providence Medical Center (aim 3) in Spokane WA. First, a culturally diverse team developed CBTsim Healthcare scenarios based on an extensive review of the literature on healthcare disparities. Then, a randomized control trial was conducted with 91 nurses to test the effectiveness of CBTsim Healthcare. Nurses received 2 hours of baseline testing, then 50 nurses (treatment group) received a 4-hour CBTsim Healthcare training and the other 41 nurses (control group) watched a 90 minute implicit bias documentary, more typical of current standard practice. Then, all 91 nurses received 2 hours of post-intervention testing. Testing included a demographic questionnaire, a scale to measure biased attitudes, patient care scenarios, and feedback on perceived training effectiveness. Nurses were then assessed for patient satisfaction using Press Ganey scores. Using this innovative design, Specific Aims were:
Aim 1: Measure the impact of CBTsim Healthcare on nurse implicit bias and prejudice.
Aim 2: Analyze the impact of CBTsim Healthcare on nurse interactions with patients in hypothetical scenarios.
Aim 3: Evaluate the impact of CBTsim Healthcare on disparities in patient satisfaction with healthcare in the hospital setting.
All major health agencies have identified minority health disparities as a matter of extreme urgency. The economic impact is an estimated $230 billion a year,32 and the social justice impact is immeasurable. Implicit bias and its impact on PCR is a cornerstone of systemic inequity, and it is one that can be feasibly addressed.
25 studies on the registry are indexed under Bias, Implicit; 8 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 91 is below the median of 114 across 20 interventional studies indexed under Bias, Implicit.
Browse Bias, Implicit studies →Washington State University is the lead sponsor of 83 studies on the registry; 16 are open to participants now.
Of its 7 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 4 (57%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
The way CBTsim works is that trainees respond to video scenarios (for example a pediatric scenario where a mother is concerned about her 11 year old son who is being bullied) that are filmed with multiple outcomes-in other words they could end very positively (the patient is pleased at the outcome), or very negatively (the patient is upset and frustrated with nursing care). The scenarios within CBTsim are carefully created so that multiple types of demographics that could elicit bias are represented (for example citizens of different races / ethnicities, ages, genders, and socio-economic status). One by one, trainees respond to scenarios, then reflect on why they made the decisions that they made (e.g., their interactions) during a facilitator-guided debrief. Peers are encouraged to volunteer their perspectives, which strengthens learning while trainees await their turn to respond to a scenario.
Behavioral: CBTsim
The bias documentary is about the science of implicit or unconscious bias in the work place, including policing, sports, healthcare, tech industry, and others.
Behavioral: bias documentary
Experimental: CBTsim is a simulation based implicit bias training platform
A documentary about unconscious bias
Patient care scenarios
Participants were asked to respond to three patient care scenarios and scored on their responses - scores ranged from 30-90 with higher scores indicating better (more equitable) performance
Time frame: Baseline and immediately post intervention
Stereotypical Attitudes
The stereotypical attitudes scale has four sections (race, gender, LGBTQ, socio-economic status) where participants are asked to rate their agreement with certain stereotypically held beliefs. Scores range from 20-100 and higher scores on the scale indicate more stereotypical attitudes.
Time frame: Baseline and immediately post intervention
Nurse engagement
Nurses were asked to respond "yes" or "no" to various questions about whether they believed the training was engaging, beneficial for reducing bias, and whether they believed it will help them in the hospital setting
Time frame: Immediate post intervention
Press Ganey Scores
Standardized patient satisfaction metrics, rating care on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good)
Time frame: Three months pre intervention and three months post intervention
Qualitative feedback
Nurses were asked to comment on how they believed the training had impacted their patient care
Time frame: 3 month post intervention
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Ran from Nov 2025 to primary completion in Jan 2026, 2 months.
Of 17 interventional studies with no phase under Bias, Implicit, half reached primary completion within 26 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 35. This study's 2 months is below that.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Washington State University