姑息关怀随机对照试验中报告种族、民族、国籍或宗教的全球模式范围综述:透明度建议。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gary Witham, Natalie G Regier, Martha Abshire Saylor, Sarah Allgood, Samantha Curriero, Tamryn F Gray, Elifnur Gunes, Bryan R Hansen, Reena Levy, Katie E Nelson, Claire M Petchler, Rebecca Singer Cohen, Rebecca Wright
{"title":"姑息关怀随机对照试验中报告种族、民族、国籍或宗教的全球模式范围综述:透明度建议。","authors":"Gary Witham, Natalie G Regier, Martha Abshire Saylor, Sarah Allgood, Samantha Curriero, Tamryn F Gray, Elifnur Gunes, Bryan R Hansen, Reena Levy, Katie E Nelson, Claire M Petchler, Rebecca Singer Cohen, Rebecca Wright","doi":"10.1177/02692163241291352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Though randomized controlled trials of non-pharmacological palliative care interventions have shown positive outcomes, findings are often generalized with limited consideration for the impact of the influence of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion on said outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify trends and gaps in global reporting of racial, ethnic, nationality, and religious demographics in non-pharmacological palliative care randomized controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted a scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs methodology.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Global randomized controlled trials published in English, between 1999 and 2021 extracted from databases: Cochrane, PubMed, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were non-pharmacological palliative care interventions for people with serious conditions reporting on one or more of the demographics of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our review included 131 (44%) articles published from 19 countries, predominantly the USA (<i>n</i> = 84, 64%). Most studies focused on cancer (<i>n</i> = 71, 54%) in inpatient settings (<i>n</i> = 85, 64%). Race was the most commonly reported demographic (<i>n</i> = 93, 70%), followed by ethnicity (<i>n</i> = 54, 41%), religion (<i>n</i> = 46, 35%), nationality (<i>n</i> = 20, 15%). Within racial reporting, 86 (92%) indicating a majority White/Caucasian sample. Only 14 (10%) articles provided context connecting participant demographics to intervention outcomes. Demographic data was discussed only as a limitation to generalizability in 18 cases (41%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Improving greater transparency in study reporting of social and historical context about population demographics, including specific demographic data collected, may better identify unmet palliative needs, facilitate cross-cultural interpretation, and improve adaptation and implementation of non-pharmacological palliative care interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19849,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"2692163241291352"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of global patterns in reporting race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion in palliative care randomized controlled trials: Recommendations for transparency.\",\"authors\":\"Gary Witham, Natalie G Regier, Martha Abshire Saylor, Sarah Allgood, Samantha Curriero, Tamryn F Gray, Elifnur Gunes, Bryan R Hansen, Reena Levy, Katie E Nelson, Claire M Petchler, Rebecca Singer Cohen, Rebecca Wright\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02692163241291352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Though randomized controlled trials of non-pharmacological palliative care interventions have shown positive outcomes, findings are often generalized with limited consideration for the impact of the influence of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion on said outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify trends and gaps in global reporting of racial, ethnic, nationality, and religious demographics in non-pharmacological palliative care randomized controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted a scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs methodology.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Global randomized controlled trials published in English, between 1999 and 2021 extracted from databases: Cochrane, PubMed, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were non-pharmacological palliative care interventions for people with serious conditions reporting on one or more of the demographics of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our review included 131 (44%) articles published from 19 countries, predominantly the USA (<i>n</i> = 84, 64%). Most studies focused on cancer (<i>n</i> = 71, 54%) in inpatient settings (<i>n</i> = 85, 64%). Race was the most commonly reported demographic (<i>n</i> = 93, 70%), followed by ethnicity (<i>n</i> = 54, 41%), religion (<i>n</i> = 46, 35%), nationality (<i>n</i> = 20, 15%). Within racial reporting, 86 (92%) indicating a majority White/Caucasian sample. Only 14 (10%) articles provided context connecting participant demographics to intervention outcomes. Demographic data was discussed only as a limitation to generalizability in 18 cases (41%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Improving greater transparency in study reporting of social and historical context about population demographics, including specific demographic data collected, may better identify unmet palliative needs, facilitate cross-cultural interpretation, and improve adaptation and implementation of non-pharmacological palliative care interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Palliative Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2692163241291352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Palliative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241291352\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241291352","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管非药物姑息关怀干预的随机对照试验显示了积极的结果,但研究结果往往被一概而论,对种族、民族、国籍或宗教对上述结果的影响考虑有限。目的:在非药物姑息关怀随机对照试验中,确定全球报告种族、民族、国籍和宗教人口统计学方面的趋势和差距:设计:我们在乔安娜-布里格斯方法的指导下进行了一次范围界定审查:数据来源:从数据库中提取的1999年至2021年间用英语发表的全球随机对照试验:Cochrane、PubMed 和 Scopus。纳入标准是针对严重疾病患者的非药物性姑息治疗干预,并报告种族、民族、国籍或宗教等一个或多个人口统计数据:我们的综述收录了 19 个国家发表的 131 篇文章(44%),其中以美国为主(n = 84,64%)。大多数研究侧重于住院环境中的癌症(n = 71,54%)(n = 85,64%)。种族是最常报告的人口统计学特征(n = 93,70%),其次是民族(n = 54,41%)、宗教(n = 46,35%)和国籍(n = 20,15%)。在种族报告中,有 86 篇文章(92%)表明样本中白人/高加索人占多数。只有 14 篇(10%)文章提供了将参与者人口统计学数据与干预结果联系起来的背景。仅有 18 篇文章(41%)讨论了人口统计学数据对可推广性的限制:提高研究报告中有关人口统计学的社会和历史背景(包括收集的具体人口统计学数据)的透明度,可以更好地识别未满足的姑息关怀需求,促进跨文化解释,并改善非药物姑息关怀干预的适应性和实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A scoping review of global patterns in reporting race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion in palliative care randomized controlled trials: Recommendations for transparency.

Background: Though randomized controlled trials of non-pharmacological palliative care interventions have shown positive outcomes, findings are often generalized with limited consideration for the impact of the influence of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion on said outcomes.

Aim: To identify trends and gaps in global reporting of racial, ethnic, nationality, and religious demographics in non-pharmacological palliative care randomized controlled trials.

Design: We conducted a scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs methodology.

Data sources: Global randomized controlled trials published in English, between 1999 and 2021 extracted from databases: Cochrane, PubMed, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were non-pharmacological palliative care interventions for people with serious conditions reporting on one or more of the demographics of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.

Results: Our review included 131 (44%) articles published from 19 countries, predominantly the USA (n = 84, 64%). Most studies focused on cancer (n = 71, 54%) in inpatient settings (n = 85, 64%). Race was the most commonly reported demographic (n = 93, 70%), followed by ethnicity (n = 54, 41%), religion (n = 46, 35%), nationality (n = 20, 15%). Within racial reporting, 86 (92%) indicating a majority White/Caucasian sample. Only 14 (10%) articles provided context connecting participant demographics to intervention outcomes. Demographic data was discussed only as a limitation to generalizability in 18 cases (41%).

Conclusions: Improving greater transparency in study reporting of social and historical context about population demographics, including specific demographic data collected, may better identify unmet palliative needs, facilitate cross-cultural interpretation, and improve adaptation and implementation of non-pharmacological palliative care interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Palliative Medicine
Palliative Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
125
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Palliative Medicine is a highly ranked, peer reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to improving knowledge and clinical practice in the palliative care of patients with far advanced disease. This outstanding journal features editorials, original papers, review articles, case reports, correspondence and book reviews. Essential reading for all members of the palliative care team. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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