Erli Sarilita, Wisnu Fadila, Sri Susilawati, Peter Anthony Mossey
{"title":"唇腭裂研究中社会经济因素的范围综述。","authors":"Erli Sarilita, Wisnu Fadila, Sri Susilawati, Peter Anthony Mossey","doi":"10.1177/10556656251379342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo map and synthesize evidence on the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and orofacial clefts (OFC), identifying key SES indicators, study designs, and evidence gaps to inform future research and policy.DesignScoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and reported per PRISMA-ScR guidelines.SettingSystematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with no date or language restrictions.Patients/ParticipantsPeer-reviewed studies of individuals with non-syndromic OFC that explicitly measured at least one SES indicator (income, education, occupation, insurance status, area-level deprivation index, or composite SES index).InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome Measure(s)Identification and charting of SES measures, study characteristics (design, setting, sample size), and domains of SES-OFC associations (eg, access to care, OFC risk).ResultsOf 259 retrieved records, 42 studies met inclusion criteria. Publications increased over time, with 78.6% conducted in high-income countries (50.0% in North America). Retrospective designs predominated (59.5%). The most common SES indicators were demographic factors (61.9% of studies; race/ethnicity in 52.4%) and household income (42.9%). Two principal domains emerged: SES impact on access to multidisciplinary OFC care (45.2% of studies; all reporting greater barriers for low-SES groups) and SES as a risk factor for OFC (33.3%; most finding increased risk with lower SES).ConclusionsSES research in OFC is expanding but remains concentrated in high-income settings with diverse measures. Harmonized core indicators-LMICs included-and longitudinal, registry-based studies are needed. Findings support targeted policy interventions (eg, subsidies, resource allocation) and routine SES screening in OFC care pathways to promote equitable access.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656251379342"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Scoping Review of Socioeconomic Factors in Orofacial Cleft Research.\",\"authors\":\"Erli Sarilita, Wisnu Fadila, Sri Susilawati, Peter Anthony Mossey\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10556656251379342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveTo map and synthesize evidence on the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and orofacial clefts (OFC), identifying key SES indicators, study designs, and evidence gaps to inform future research and policy.DesignScoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and reported per PRISMA-ScR guidelines.SettingSystematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with no date or language restrictions.Patients/ParticipantsPeer-reviewed studies of individuals with non-syndromic OFC that explicitly measured at least one SES indicator (income, education, occupation, insurance status, area-level deprivation index, or composite SES index).InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome Measure(s)Identification and charting of SES measures, study characteristics (design, setting, sample size), and domains of SES-OFC associations (eg, access to care, OFC risk).ResultsOf 259 retrieved records, 42 studies met inclusion criteria. Publications increased over time, with 78.6% conducted in high-income countries (50.0% in North America). Retrospective designs predominated (59.5%). The most common SES indicators were demographic factors (61.9% of studies; race/ethnicity in 52.4%) and household income (42.9%). Two principal domains emerged: SES impact on access to multidisciplinary OFC care (45.2% of studies; all reporting greater barriers for low-SES groups) and SES as a risk factor for OFC (33.3%; most finding increased risk with lower SES).ConclusionsSES research in OFC is expanding but remains concentrated in high-income settings with diverse measures. Harmonized core indicators-LMICs included-and longitudinal, registry-based studies are needed. Findings support targeted policy interventions (eg, subsidies, resource allocation) and routine SES screening in OFC care pathways to promote equitable access.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10556656251379342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251379342\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656251379342","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的绘制并综合社会经济地位(SES)与唇腭裂(OFC)之间关系的证据,确定社会经济地位的关键指标、研究设计和证据缺口,为未来的研究和政策提供信息。根据Arksey和O'Malley的框架进行设计范围审查,并根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行报告。设置PubMed, Scopus和Web of Science的系统搜索,没有日期或语言限制。患者/参与者对明确测量至少一项SES指标(收入、教育、职业、保险状况、地区剥夺指数或综合SES指数)的非综合征性OFC个体的研究进行了speer综述。InterventionsNot适用。鉴定和绘制SES测量指标、研究特征(设计、环境、样本量)以及SES-OFC关联领域(如获得护理、OFC风险)。结果在259份检索记录中,有42项研究符合纳入标准。随着时间的推移,出版物数量有所增加,高收入国家占78.6%(北美占50.0%)。回顾性设计占主导地位(59.5%)。最常见的社会经济地位指标是人口因素(61.9%的研究;种族/族裔占52.4%)和家庭收入(42.9%)。出现了两个主要领域:经济地位对获得多学科OFC护理的影响(45.2%的研究;所有研究都报告了低经济地位群体的更大障碍)和经济地位作为OFC的风险因素(33.3%;大多数研究发现经济地位低风险增加)。结论:对OFC的研究正在扩大,但仍集中在高收入环境中,测量方法多种多样。需要统一的核心指标(包括低收入国家)和纵向的、基于登记的研究。研究结果支持有针对性的政策干预(如补贴、资源分配)和在OFC护理途径中进行常规SES筛查,以促进公平获取。
A Scoping Review of Socioeconomic Factors in Orofacial Cleft Research.
ObjectiveTo map and synthesize evidence on the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and orofacial clefts (OFC), identifying key SES indicators, study designs, and evidence gaps to inform future research and policy.DesignScoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and reported per PRISMA-ScR guidelines.SettingSystematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science with no date or language restrictions.Patients/ParticipantsPeer-reviewed studies of individuals with non-syndromic OFC that explicitly measured at least one SES indicator (income, education, occupation, insurance status, area-level deprivation index, or composite SES index).InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome Measure(s)Identification and charting of SES measures, study characteristics (design, setting, sample size), and domains of SES-OFC associations (eg, access to care, OFC risk).ResultsOf 259 retrieved records, 42 studies met inclusion criteria. Publications increased over time, with 78.6% conducted in high-income countries (50.0% in North America). Retrospective designs predominated (59.5%). The most common SES indicators were demographic factors (61.9% of studies; race/ethnicity in 52.4%) and household income (42.9%). Two principal domains emerged: SES impact on access to multidisciplinary OFC care (45.2% of studies; all reporting greater barriers for low-SES groups) and SES as a risk factor for OFC (33.3%; most finding increased risk with lower SES).ConclusionsSES research in OFC is expanding but remains concentrated in high-income settings with diverse measures. Harmonized core indicators-LMICs included-and longitudinal, registry-based studies are needed. Findings support targeted policy interventions (eg, subsidies, resource allocation) and routine SES screening in OFC care pathways to promote equitable access.
期刊介绍:
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.