JSNMA SUMMER 2019 Sneak Preview

34 Scientific Focus
Table 1. Workshop Attendees’ Self-Reported Demographic Information
Demographic Category
Gender Identity
Number of
Participants (N)
Percentage of
Participants (%N)
Male 4 20
Female 15 75
Genderqueer/Non-binary 1 5
Education Level
Undergraduate 5 25
Graduate 15 75
Generational Affiliation
Baby Boomers: Born from 1945-64 3 15
Gen X: Born from 1965-80 2 10
Gen Y/Millennials: Born from 1981-96 15 75
Political Affiliation
Democrat 14 70
Republican 0 0
Independent 3 15
Missing or Decline to comment 3 15
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Black 2 10
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 10
White 15 75
Multiracial 1 5
Religious Identity
Christian 5 25
Roman Catholic 3 15
Buddhist 1 5
Atheist 2 10
Spiritual (not Religious) 6 30
Current Profession
Student 5 25
Nurse 3 15
Physician 9 45
Social Worker 3 15
Table 2. Reported Pre-Test Means Data for Diversity Training
Survey Question Mean Score (Range 1-5) Std Dev
How many hours of specific
training did you receive on
addressing racism during
your official matriculation?
1.6 (1-4),
Roughly translates to
~2-5 hours
1.231
The pre-test questionnaires offered insight into the
participants’ prior exposures to diversity training and
racial traumas. Hours of training specific to addressing
racism was almost equally split between having
either 0-3 or 3-5 hours. On average, the frequency of
experiencing racism in the clinical setting was rated
between “occasional” (score of 3) and “frequent” (score
of 4) with a mean score of 3.59 and a total range
between 2.6 and 4.4.
Additionally, the pre-test showed that the participants’
reported comfort in addressing racism with a patient
of a different racial identity differed significantly by the
racial and generational identity of the participants, and
also the reported feeling of importance in addressing
racial trauma in clinical practice varied by their
generational affiliation and religious identity. Differences
in response to whether or not participants encountered
racism in their clinical practices could be found across
professional titles and between the White and non-
White racial identities.
Following the presentation and group discussions,
post-test data demonstrated variance in comfort with
the concept of empathy by income, gender, race,
and religious identity. Comfort using DEAR MAN
skills differed by income, race, and profession; while
participants’ assessments of the likelihood for future
incorporation of the techniques varied by gender and
religion.
Table 3. Pre-Test Summary of Significant Values: Means Data, ANOVA Analysis of Multivariates, and t-test Sampling of Independent Binary
Variables
Survey Question
How often do you encounter racism in your
clinical practice?
How familiar would you say you are with
your concept of racism?
How important do you feel it is to address
racial trauma in clinical practice?
How comfortable do you feel addressing racism
with a patient/client of a different racial
identity?
Mean Scores
(Range 1-5)
Std Dev ANOVA by Group (p-value) t-test Sample by Group (p-value)
3.59 (1-5) 0.939 Generation (0.049) and Profession
(0.081)
White vs non-White (0.088)
4.00 (3-5) 0.745 Race (0.072) --
4.80 (1-5) 0.894 Religion (0.086) and Profession
(0.089)
2.85 (2-5) 0.813 Generation (0.081) and
Race (0.035)
--
--
J o u r n a l o f t h e S t u d e n t N a t i o n a l M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n