Burn model system national longitudinal database representativeness by race, ethnicity, gender, and age

Abstract

Introduction: Representativeness of research populations impacts the ability to extrapolate findings. The Burn Model System (BMS) National Database is one of the largest prospective, longitudinal, multi-center research repositories collecting patient-reported outcomes after burn injury. Objective: To assess if the BMS Database is representative of the population that is eligible to participate. Design: Data on adult burn survivors who were eligible for the BMS Database from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed. Setting: Not applicable. Participants: Burn survivors treated at BMS centers meeting eligibility criteria for the BMS Database. Eligibility for the database is based on burn size and receipt of autografting surgery. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s): Race, ethnicity, gender, and age were compared between individuals who did and did not enroll. Regression analysis examined the correlation between demographic characteristics and study enrollment. Additional regression analysis examined the association between enrollment and the intersection of race, ethnicity, and gender. Results: A total of 982 adult burn survivors were eligible for the BMS database during the study period. Of those who were eligible, 72.1% Enrolled and 27.9% were Not Enrolled. The Enrolled group included more female and more younger survivors compared to the Not Enrolled group. In regression

Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of burns in mainland China from 2009 to 2018

“…This may be because of male occupations with more risk factors [ 14 ]. The best cure rates for burns are seen in patients of 20–30 years, which is possibly due to this age group being the strongest and able to withstand severe injuries and recover quickly [ 18–20 ]. The cure rates showed a decreasing trend with advancing age, which may be caused by physiological functions of the human body declining with age.…”

Author Diversity on Clinical Practice Guideline Committees

“…There are documented disparities in the PM&R workforce for women and people who identify as racial or ethnic minorities, [4][5][6] as well as known disparities for patients who identify with these same groups with regard to access to rehabilitation care 7,8 and inclusion in clinical trials. 9,10 More than a decade ago, a report titled "Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust" was published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). 11 The report recommended eight standards for developing rigorous, trustworthy CPGs, one of which was "guideline development group composition" 11 (Table 1).…”

“…How authorship disparities affect guideline content or the delivery of care is unknown. There are documented disparities in the PM&R workforce for women and people who identify as racial or ethnic minorities, 4–6 as well as known disparities for patients who identify with these same groups with regard to access to rehabilitation care 7,8 and inclusion in clinical trials 9,10 …”