A scoping review of geriatric emergency medicine research transparency in diversity, equity, and inclusion reporting.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1111/jgs.19052
Anita N Chary, Michelle Suh, Edgardo Ordoñez, Lauren Cameron-Comasco, Surriya Ahmad, Alexander Zirulnik, Angela Hardi, Alden Landry, Vivian Ramont, Tracey Obi, Emily H Weaver, Christopher R Carpenter
{"title":"A scoping review of geriatric emergency medicine research transparency in diversity, equity, and inclusion reporting.","authors":"Anita N Chary, Michelle Suh, Edgardo Ordoñez, Lauren Cameron-Comasco, Surriya Ahmad, Alexander Zirulnik, Angela Hardi, Alden Landry, Vivian Ramont, Tracey Obi, Emily H Weaver, Christopher R Carpenter","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The intersection of ageism and racism is underexplored in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM) research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a scoping review of research published between January 2016 and December 2021. We included original emergency department-based research focused on falls, delirium/dementia, medication safety, and elder abuse. We excluded manuscripts that did not include (1) original research data pertaining to the four core topics, (2) older adults, (3) subjects from the United States, and (4) for which full text publication could not be obtained. The primary objective was to qualitatively describe reporting about older adults' social identities in GEM research. Secondary objectives were to describe (1) the extent of inclusion of minoritized older adults in GEM research, (2) GEM research about health equity, and (3) feasible approaches to improve the status quo of GEM research reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After duplicates were removed, 3277 citations remained and 883 full-text articles were reviewed, of which 222 met inclusion criteria. Four findings emerged. First, race and ethnicity reporting was inconsistent. Second, research rarely provided a rationale for an age threshold used to define geriatric patients. Third, GEM research more commonly reported sex than gender. Fourth, research commonly excluded older adults with cognitive impairment and speakers of non-English primary languages.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Meaningful assessment of GEM research inclusivity is limited by inconsistent reporting of sociodemographic characteristics, specifically race and ethnicity. Reporting of sociodemographic characteristics should be standardized across different study designs. Strategies are needed to include in GEM research older adults with cognitive impairment and non-English primary languages.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11560720/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The intersection of ageism and racism is underexplored in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM) research.

Methods: We performed a scoping review of research published between January 2016 and December 2021. We included original emergency department-based research focused on falls, delirium/dementia, medication safety, and elder abuse. We excluded manuscripts that did not include (1) original research data pertaining to the four core topics, (2) older adults, (3) subjects from the United States, and (4) for which full text publication could not be obtained. The primary objective was to qualitatively describe reporting about older adults' social identities in GEM research. Secondary objectives were to describe (1) the extent of inclusion of minoritized older adults in GEM research, (2) GEM research about health equity, and (3) feasible approaches to improve the status quo of GEM research reporting.

Results: After duplicates were removed, 3277 citations remained and 883 full-text articles were reviewed, of which 222 met inclusion criteria. Four findings emerged. First, race and ethnicity reporting was inconsistent. Second, research rarely provided a rationale for an age threshold used to define geriatric patients. Third, GEM research more commonly reported sex than gender. Fourth, research commonly excluded older adults with cognitive impairment and speakers of non-English primary languages.

Conclusion: Meaningful assessment of GEM research inclusivity is limited by inconsistent reporting of sociodemographic characteristics, specifically race and ethnicity. Reporting of sociodemographic characteristics should be standardized across different study designs. Strategies are needed to include in GEM research older adults with cognitive impairment and non-English primary languages.

老年急诊医学研究在多样性、公平性和包容性报告方面透明度的范围审查。
导言:老年急诊医学(GEM)研究中对年龄歧视和种族主义的交集探讨不足:我们对 2016 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月间发表的研究进行了范围界定。方法:我们对 2016 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月间发表的研究进行了范围界定,其中包括基于急诊科的原创研究,重点关注跌倒、谵妄/痴呆、用药安全和虐待老人。我们排除了不包括以下内容的稿件:(1)与四个核心主题相关的原创研究数据;(2)老年人;(3)来自美国的研究对象;(4)无法获得全文发表的稿件。首要目标是对 GEM 研究中有关老年人社会身份的报告进行定性描述。次要目标是描述:(1) 少数族裔老年人参与 GEM 研究的程度;(2) 有关健康公平的 GEM 研究;(3) 改善 GEM 研究报告现状的可行方法:结果:在删除重复文章后,还剩下 3277 篇引文和 883 篇全文文章,其中 222 篇符合纳入标准。有四项发现。首先,种族和民族报告不一致。其次,很少有研究对界定老年患者的年龄阈值提供理由。第三,GEM 研究更多报告的是性别而非性别。第四,研究通常不包括有认知障碍和使用非英语母语的老年人:结论:对 GEM 研究的包容性进行有意义的评估受到了社会人口特征(特别是种族和民族)报告不一致的限制。在不同的研究设计中,社会人口特征的报告应该标准化。需要制定策略,将有认知障碍和非英语母语的老年人纳入 GEM 研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信