Eric Durudogan, Peter C Shen, Jasmin S Vargas, Abdullah Arif, Amin Alayleh, Neeraj M Patel
{"title":"骨科手术健康公平研究:系统回顾与需求评估。","authors":"Eric Durudogan, Peter C Shen, Jasmin S Vargas, Abdullah Arif, Amin Alayleh, Neeraj M Patel","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of health equity research was to initially identify inequities and ultimately eliminate them. Little is known about the content, quality, and impact of health equity research in the orthopaedic literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize the state of health equity research in orthopaedic surgery, with attention to temporal and specialty trends, research methodology, and intervention development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Clarivate Web of Science platform was queried for English-language publications from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Book chapters, meeting abstracts, proceeding papers, retracted publications, and non-English papers were excluded. Articles were filtered and then reviewed individually. Bibliometric data were noted, including publication year, open access, number of citations, and journal impact factor. We also collected information on clinical specialty, study design, community engagement, whether an intervention was designed or tested, and associated funding sources. Descriptive statistics were then calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search yielded 7,248 total articles, 855 of which were included. The majority (552/855, 64.6%) were published between 2019 and 2022, with 205 (24.0%) in 2022 alone. Arthroplasty was the most represented subspecialty, with 370 articles (43.3%). Seven hundred eighty-four articles (91.7%) were observational or experimental research studies. Of these, 73.1% had a retrospective design. Only one study (0.1%) used qualitative methods. Thirty-six articles (4.2%) focused on interventions. However, only 8 (0.9%) evaluated original interventions, while the majority of the others retrospectively analyzed the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion, or bundled payments. Eighteen publications (2.1%) were directly supported by National Institutes of Health funding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a sharp increase in the number of orthopaedic publications on disparities, especially since 2019. Most are retrospective and identify or describe a disparity rather than investigate an intervention. There was a near-complete lack of qualitative methodology, community engagement, or federal funding. More institutional and financial support for this work is critical, as is the adaptation of new methodologies and community involvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12150932/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Equity Research in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Needs Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Eric Durudogan, Peter C Shen, Jasmin S Vargas, Abdullah Arif, Amin Alayleh, Neeraj M Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of health equity research was to initially identify inequities and ultimately eliminate them. Little is known about the content, quality, and impact of health equity research in the orthopaedic literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize the state of health equity research in orthopaedic surgery, with attention to temporal and specialty trends, research methodology, and intervention development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Clarivate Web of Science platform was queried for English-language publications from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Book chapters, meeting abstracts, proceeding papers, retracted publications, and non-English papers were excluded. Articles were filtered and then reviewed individually. Bibliometric data were noted, including publication year, open access, number of citations, and journal impact factor. We also collected information on clinical specialty, study design, community engagement, whether an intervention was designed or tested, and associated funding sources. Descriptive statistics were then calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search yielded 7,248 total articles, 855 of which were included. The majority (552/855, 64.6%) were published between 2019 and 2022, with 205 (24.0%) in 2022 alone. Arthroplasty was the most represented subspecialty, with 370 articles (43.3%). Seven hundred eighty-four articles (91.7%) were observational or experimental research studies. Of these, 73.1% had a retrospective design. Only one study (0.1%) used qualitative methods. Thirty-six articles (4.2%) focused on interventions. However, only 8 (0.9%) evaluated original interventions, while the majority of the others retrospectively analyzed the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion, or bundled payments. Eighteen publications (2.1%) were directly supported by National Institutes of Health funding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a sharp increase in the number of orthopaedic publications on disparities, especially since 2019. Most are retrospective and identify or describe a disparity rather than investigate an intervention. There was a near-complete lack of qualitative methodology, community engagement, or federal funding. More institutional and financial support for this work is critical, as is the adaptation of new methodologies and community involvement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12150932/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00246\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:卫生公平研究的目的是首先确定不平等,并最终消除不平等。我们对骨科文献中健康公平研究的内容、质量和影响知之甚少。因此,本研究的目的是表征骨科外科健康公平研究的现状,并关注时间和专业趋势、研究方法和干预措施的发展。方法:查询Clarivate Web of Science平台2013年1月1日至2022年12月31日的英文出版物。书籍章节、会议摘要、会议论文、撤回的出版物和非英文论文被排除在外。文章被过滤,然后单独审查。文献计量数据被记录,包括出版年份、开放获取、引用次数和期刊影响因子。我们还收集了有关临床专科、研究设计、社区参与、是否设计或测试干预措施以及相关资金来源的信息。然后计算描述性统计。结果:初始检索共产生7,248篇文章,其中855篇被收录。大多数(552/855,64.6%)发表于2019年至2022年之间,仅2022年就有205篇(24.0%)。关节成形术是最具代表性的亚专科,有370篇(43.3%)。784篇(91.7%)为观察性或实验性研究。其中,73.1%为回顾性设计。只有一项研究(0.1%)采用定性方法。36篇文章(4.2%)侧重于干预措施。然而,只有8项(0.9%)研究评估了最初的干预措施,而其他大多数研究回顾性分析了《患者保护和平价医疗法案》、医疗补助扩张或捆绑支付的影响。18篇出版物(2.1%)由美国国立卫生研究院直接资助。结论:关于差异的骨科出版物数量急剧增加,特别是自2019年以来。大多数是回顾性的,确定或描述差异,而不是调查干预措施。几乎完全缺乏定性方法、社区参与或联邦资助。对这项工作提供更多的体制和财政支持至关重要,采用新方法和社区参与也至关重要。
Health Equity Research in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Needs Assessment.
Background: The aim of health equity research was to initially identify inequities and ultimately eliminate them. Little is known about the content, quality, and impact of health equity research in the orthopaedic literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize the state of health equity research in orthopaedic surgery, with attention to temporal and specialty trends, research methodology, and intervention development.
Methods: The Clarivate Web of Science platform was queried for English-language publications from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Book chapters, meeting abstracts, proceeding papers, retracted publications, and non-English papers were excluded. Articles were filtered and then reviewed individually. Bibliometric data were noted, including publication year, open access, number of citations, and journal impact factor. We also collected information on clinical specialty, study design, community engagement, whether an intervention was designed or tested, and associated funding sources. Descriptive statistics were then calculated.
Results: The initial search yielded 7,248 total articles, 855 of which were included. The majority (552/855, 64.6%) were published between 2019 and 2022, with 205 (24.0%) in 2022 alone. Arthroplasty was the most represented subspecialty, with 370 articles (43.3%). Seven hundred eighty-four articles (91.7%) were observational or experimental research studies. Of these, 73.1% had a retrospective design. Only one study (0.1%) used qualitative methods. Thirty-six articles (4.2%) focused on interventions. However, only 8 (0.9%) evaluated original interventions, while the majority of the others retrospectively analyzed the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion, or bundled payments. Eighteen publications (2.1%) were directly supported by National Institutes of Health funding.
Conclusion: There was a sharp increase in the number of orthopaedic publications on disparities, especially since 2019. Most are retrospective and identify or describe a disparity rather than investigate an intervention. There was a near-complete lack of qualitative methodology, community engagement, or federal funding. More institutional and financial support for this work is critical, as is the adaptation of new methodologies and community involvement.