You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 29, Issue 3
  • Representation of patients with non-English language preferences in motor vehicle collision trauma and emergency medicine research

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Systematic review
Representation of patients with non-English language preferences in motor vehicle collision trauma and emergency medicine research
  1. Margaret Smith1,
  2. Claire Tibbetts2,
  3. Pooja Agrawal3,
  4. Alexis Cordone3,
  5. Rebecca Leff4,
  6. Rand N Smith5,
  7. Timothy P Moran6,
  8. Alexandria Brackett3,
  9. Amy Zeidan6
  1. 1 Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, La Jolla, California, USA
  2. 2 Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, Georgia, USA
  3. 3 Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  4. 4 Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  5. 5 Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  6. 6 Department of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Margaret Smith, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA; mas018{at}health.ucsd.edu

Abstract

Background Individuals with non-English language preferences (NELP) represent a growing proportion of the USA population. Prior studies demonstrate disparate health outcomes related to NELP status; however, this patient population is often excluded from medical research. There is a paucity of literature describing the impact of NELP status on trauma, specifically injury and outcomes related to vehicle occupants injured during motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). The goal of this study was to evaluate the representation of patients with NELP in both emergency medicine and trauma literature.

Methods We conducted a systematic search of US-based publications from 2010 to 2021. Titles, abstracts and full texts of eligible articles were evaluated. Data were extracted using an a priori determined standardised reporting tool to evaluate language as study inclusion/exclusion criteria, manuscript reporting of language, assessment of language as a primary variable and consideration of language in study methodology.

Results A total of 82 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-three studies (28%) excluded NELP populations and only one study explicitly included the NELP population. None of the studies evaluated language as a primary outcome of the study or included language as a variable in the analysis. Over half of the studies (53.6%) used a public data set or registry.

Conclusion NELP populations are routinely excluded from and are difficult to identify in MVC trauma research. Without appropriate inclusion and identification, it will be difficult to understand the prevalence and outcomes of traumatic injury in NELP patients and to develop culturally and linguistically appropriate interventions.

  • Motor vehicle � Occupant
  • Immigrant/Refugee
  • Health Disparities

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2022-044813

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @pagrawalmd, @amyjwal

    • Contributors MS: assisted with study design, acquired data, drafted and revised the manuscript. CT: assisted with study design, acquired data, revised the manuscript. AC: acquired data, revised the manuscript. RL: acquired data, revised the manuscript. TPM: assisted with study design, analysed and interpreted data, drafted and revised the manuscript. AB: assisted with study design. PA: conceived and designed study, acquired data, interpreted data, critically revised the manuscript. RNS: conceived and designed study, acquired data, interpreted data, critically revised the manuscript. AZ: conceived and designed study, acquired and had access to the data, interpreted data, drafted the manuscript, critically revised the manuscript; accepts full responsibility for the work and conduct of the study and controlled the decision to publish.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.