In an illuminating and rigorous investigation that confronts the often-overlooked disparities within healthcare systems, researchers Overtoom, Goodarzi, Kanu, and colleagues have published a groundbreaking study in the International Journal for Equity in Health that exposes intrinsic and systemic racial and ethnic biases in the assessment, management, and treatment of pain during maternal and newborn care in the Netherlands. This mixed-methods study is a critical addition to the growing body of evidence revealing how ingrained prejudices and institutional structures intersect to undermine equitable medical care. It challenges the self-perception of healthcare professionals as neutral actors, prompting urgent reflection and reform.
At the core of this research is the discomforting realization that clinicians, many of whom believe themselves to be unbiased decision-makers, may unwittingly perpetuate inequities in healthcare outcomes through implicit biases. The title itself — “You think, like, you’re neutral but you’re not” — captures the cognitive dissonance experienced by care providers who are confronted with evidence of their own partialities. Employing a combination of quantitative data analysis and qualitative interviews, the authors delineate how these biases manifest in both subjective and objective measures related to pain perception and clinical responses in maternal and newborn settings.
Pain, particularly during childbirth and neonatal care, is one of the most elemental aspects of human experience. Yet, it is also one of the most variably assessed and managed symptoms across patient populations. This variability is compounded by racial and ethnic dimensions, where patients from minority groups frequently report not being taken seriously or having their pain underestimated. The study meticulously illustrates how these disparities are neither random nor isolated but are embedded in clinical protocols and the subjective judgments of healthcare professionals influenced by sociocultural stereotypes.
The mixed-methods approach adopted here allows for a comprehensive exploration of the problem from multiple angles. Quantitative data provided a foundation by revealing statistically significant differences in pain medication administration and other care practices between ethnic groups. This was corroborated with in-depth interviews and focus groups that revealed the nuanced ways healthcare providers interpret and react to expressions of pain, often filtered through unconscious biases related to ethnicity and race.
The setting of the Netherlands adds a unique lens to these findings. Despite its reputation as a progressive country with a robust healthcare system, the study underscores that no setting is immune to the pervasive nature of implicit bias. This challenges the assumption that socioeconomic or national contexts alone can safeguard against racial/ethnic disparities. Instead, it points to the need for continuous vigilance and targeted interventions irrespective of apparent societal equity.
One of the salient insights from the interviews was the frequent reliance on stereotypical assumptions by healthcare providers. These assumptions often reduced complex pain experiences to simplistic and biased interpretations, such as the erroneous belief that certain ethnic groups have higher pain tolerances or are more likely to exaggerate symptoms. Such misconceptions directly impact clinical decisions, leading to undertreatment or overtreatment, both of which carry significant health risks for mothers and infants.
The ramifications of biased pain assessment ripple far beyond immediate discomfort. Inadequate pain management during labor can result in psychological trauma, hinder bonding between mother and child, and precipitate complications during childbirth. For newborns, biased practices may delay the detection and treatment of distress signals, adversely affecting developmental outcomes. The study’s findings emphasize that addressing bias is not merely a matter of equity but an urgent public health imperative.
While the study exposes troubling trends, it also offers pathways for rectification. Training aimed at increasing provider awareness of implicit bias emerged as a crucial recommendation, emphasizing not just superficial diversity education but deep cognitive recognition of subconscious prejudices. The authors advocate for standardized pain assessment tools designed to minimize subjective interpretation, thereby reducing opportunities for bias to influence clinical decisions.
Moreover, institutional reforms are called for, including the integration of cultural competency into healthcare protocols and continuous monitoring of healthcare disparities as a metric of quality assurance. The study points to the potential benefits of involving patients and communities in developing care protocols that are sensitive to the needs and experiences of diverse populations, thereby fostering trust and improving communication.
The research methodology itself is notable for its robustness, combining large-scale data analytics with rich qualitative narratives. This fusion enables a holistic understanding of both the systemic patterns and the personal experiences of bias in clinical contexts. Such an approach sets a new standard for research into healthcare disparities, highlighting the value of interdisciplinary methods in unraveling complex social determinants of health.
The study also implicitly critiques the myth of the ‘neutral’ clinician, revealing that good intentions alone cannot safeguard against bias. This challenges the medical community to rethink training and evaluation frameworks, embedding critical self-reflection and structural awareness as central competencies for healthcare providers. It compels institutions to recognize that neutrality is an illusion when embedded in unequal social contexts.
Furthermore, the study’s implications extend beyond the Netherlands, resonating globally. Health disparities related to racial and ethnic bias are a universal concern, documented in diverse healthcare systems worldwide. By providing empirical evidence from a European context, this research contributes to the global dialogue on equity in maternal and newborn health, reinforcing the urgency for international collaboration in policy development and practice reform.
The timing of this study is particularly pertinent in an era increasingly defined by social justice movements and calls to decolonize medicine. It aligns with broader efforts to acknowledge and dismantle systemic racism in healthcare, advocating for transparency, accountability, and patient-centered care that respects cultural and individual differences.
In conclusion, Overtoom and colleagues’ mixed-methods study pierces through the superficial layers of clinical practice to expose deep-seated racial and ethnic biases in pain assessment and management in maternal and newborn care. It challenges the prevailing narratives of neutrality, foregrounds the lived realities of minority patients, and offers actionable insights for the transformation of healthcare systems. Their work demands that healthcare professionals, policymakers, and society at large confront inconvenient truths and commit to building care environments where equity is not aspirational but actualized.
Subject of Research: Racial and ethnic bias in pain assessment, management, and treatment in maternal and newborn healthcare.
Article Title: “You think, like, you’re neutral but you’re not”: a mixed-methods study of racial/ethnic bias in pain assessment, management and treatment in maternal and newborn care in the Netherlands.
Article References:
Overtoom, E., Goodarzi, B., Kanu, S., et al. “You think, like, you’re neutral but you’re not”: a mixed-methods study of racial/ethnic bias in pain assessment, management and treatment in maternal and newborn care in the Netherlands. Int J Equity Health (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02714-w
Image Credits: AI Generated
