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

• Published in: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) Vol. 72; no. 11; pp. 3551 - 3566
• Main Authors: Chary, Anita N., Suh, Michelle, Ordoñez, Edgardo, Cameron‐Comasco, Lauren, Ahmad, Surriya, Zirulnik, Alexander, Hardi, Angela, Landry, Alden, Ramont, Vivian, Obi, Tracey, Weaver, Emily H., Carpenter, Christopher R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.11.2024; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Aged; Ageism; Biomedical Research; Cognitive ability; Cultural Diversity; Dementia disorders; diversity; Emergency medical care; Emergency Medicine; equity; Ethnicity; Female; Gender; Geriatrics; Health Equity; Humans; Inclusion; Male; Minority & ethnic groups; Older people; Sociodemographics; United States; United States; geriatrics; inclusion; diversity; emergency medicine; equity; research
• ISSN: 0002-8614; 1532-5415; 1532-5415
• DOI: 10.1111/jgs.19052

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.