Research Equity in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery

Patterson, Rolvix H.; Xu, Mary Jue; Okerosi, Samuel; Bhutta, Mahmood F.; Der, Carolina; Alkire, Blake C; Njogu, Rose; Vendra, Varun; Tamir, Sharon Ovnat; Fagan, Johannes J.

doi:10.1177/2473974x211024145

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Region-specific research should include regional representation by prioritizing local representatives as first or co–first authors to highlight and develop local expertise. 22 Article-processing charges should also be carefully structured to promote inclusion of authors from low-income countries. With crucial issues pertaining to race and inherently within its definition, a global voice and representation are warranted ( Table 8 , recommendation 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Race and Ethnicity in Otolaryngology Academic Publications

Lindeborg

Din

Araya-Quezada

et al. 2022

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Within otolaryngology, race is commonly included as a study covariate; however, its value in clinical practice is unclear. This study sought to explore how race and ethnicity have been used and applied over time in otolaryngology publications. Data Sources PubMed database. Review Methods A systematic review was done to identify original otolaryngology studies between January 1, 1946, and June 25, 2020, with the following search terms: “otolaryngology” AND “race” OR “ethnicity.” Results Of the 1984 yielded studies, 932 were included in the final analysis. Only 2 studies (0.2%) defined race, and 172 (18.5%) gave participants the opportunity to self-identify race. Less than half (n = 322, 43.8%) of studies controlled for confounders. One hundred studies (10.7%) linked race to genetic factors. An overall 564 (60.5%) made conclusions about race, and 232 (24.9%) mentioned that race is relevant for clinical decision making. The majority of studies had first and senior authors from high-income countries (93.9% and 93.8%, respectively). Over time, there was a significant increase in publications that controlled for confounders, the number of race categories used, and studies that highlighted disparities. Conclusion Race and ethnicity are often poorly defined in otolaryngology publications. Furthermore, publications do not always control for confounding variables or allow participants to self-identify race. On the basis of our findings, we suggest 7 foundational principles that can be used to promote equitable research in otolaryngology publications. Future efforts should focus on incorporating research guidelines for race and ethnicity into journal publication standards.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Race and Ethnicity in Otolaryngology Academic Publications

Lindeborg

Din

Araya-Quezada

et al. 2022

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The issue of equity in research is a growing focus for those conducting research with vulnerable populations ( Hedt-Gauthier et al 2019 ; Abimbola 2019 ; Patterson et al 2021 ) and these concerns are especially pertinent for RCTs. Globally, RCTs are often funded by external agencies and conducted by nonlocal researchers ( Kelaher et al 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding Clinical Trials Designs to Extend Equitable Hearing Care

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical trials are critically important to translate scientific innovations into clinical practice. Hearing healthcare depends on this translational approach to improve outcomes and quality of life. Across the spectrum of healthcare, there is a lack of diverse participation in clinical trials, a failure to recruit and retain underrepresented and underserved populations, and an absence of rigorous dissemination and implementation of novel research to broader populations. The field of hearing healthcare research would benefit from expanding the types and designs of clinical trials that extend hearing healthcare and novel interventions to diverse populations, as well as emphasizing trials that evaluate factors influencing how that care can be delivered effectively. This article explores the following: (1) the role, value, and design types of clinical trials (randomized controlled, cluster randomized, stepped wedge, and mixed methods) to address health equity; (2) the importance of integrating community and stakeholder involvement; and (3) dissemination and implementation frameworks and designs for clinical trials (hybrid trial designs). By adopting a broader range of clinical trial designs, hearing healthcare researchers may be able to extend scientific discoveries to a more diverse population.

show abstract

“…Once again, we salute Patterson et al 1 for their brilliant piece on research equity in Global OHNS. We look forward to seeing the product of their research equity framework on the quality and output of research from LMICs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The following low‐ and middle‐income country (LMIC) institutions had the most publications in their regions: the University of the Witwatersrand (sub‐Saharan Africa), Mahidol University (East Asia and Pacific), University of São Paulo (Latin America and the Caribbean), Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Middle East and North Africa), Hacettepe University (Europe and Central Asia), and All India Institute of Medical Science (South Asia) 2 . As highlighted by Patterson et al, 1 high‐income country authors and institutions were major contributors of Global OHNS. Four of the 10 most prolific countries were high‐income countries contributing to 67.4% of the top 10 publications 2 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%