ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07886931CBTsimUpdated Oct 21, 2026

Counter Bias Training Simulation Healthcare

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

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 10 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Nov 2025, registered Sep 2026).
Updated Oct 21, 2026Newly registeredGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
91
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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.

Read the detailed description

"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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Implicit Bias

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Implicit Bias
  • Patient Clinician Relationships
  • Health Equity
  • Health Disparities
03

In context

Bias, Implicit

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 →

Lead sponsor

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.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

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.

Inclusion criteria

  • Registered nurse working full time at the test hospital

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Not a registered nurse working full time at the test hospital
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
91 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Counter Bias Training Simulation (CBTsim) - an anti bias training intervention for healthcare

    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

  • Active comparator
    bias documentary

    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

Interventions

  • BehavioralCBTsim

    Experimental: CBTsim is a simulation based implicit bias training platform

  • Behavioralbias documentary

    A documentary about unconscious bias

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Qualitative feedback

    Nurses were asked to comment on how they believed the training had impacted their patient care

    Time frame: 3 month post intervention

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Washington State University
    Spokane, Washington 99202, United States
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

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.

Registered
Sep 29, 2026
First posted
Oct 21, 2026
StartActual
Nov 5, 2025
Primary completionActual
Jan 31, 2026
CompletionActual
Jan 31, 2026
Last update
Oct 21, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
Registered
First appeared on the registry. No changes since
Oct 21, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 21, 2026
    First appeared on the registry

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 ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07886931
Lead sponsor
Washington State University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 21, 2026
Start date
Nov 5, 2025
Primary completion
Jan 31, 2026
Completion
Jan 31, 2026
Last update
Oct 21, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Start the discussion