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

Chary AN, Suh M, Ordoñez E, Cameron-Comasco L, Ahmad S, Zirulnik A, Hardi A, Landry A, Ramont V, Obi T, Weaver EH, Carpenter CR. A scoping review of geriatric emergency medicine research transparency in diversity, equity, and inclusion reporting. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2024 Jul 12.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

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.