Objective: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on the frequency of reporting of sociodemographic data (gender, race, ethnicity, education status, health insurance status, geographic location of residence, and socioeconomic status) among interventional clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. Databases Reviewed: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to identify peer reviewed research. Methods: A systematic review was performed, which included original prospective clinical trial research studies involving cochlear implantation and/or interventional trials involving cochlear implant patients. Collected data included funding type, level of evidence, race reporting, ethnicity reporting, socioeconomic status reporting, education level reporting, type of insurance, geographic location, and gender of patients. Results: A total of 644 articles were included for review. Gender was the most reported sociodemographic factor (70% of included studies). Reporting of other data among included studies was low: educational level (6%), socioeconomic status (2%), race (1%), ethnicity (1%), insurance status (0.3%), and geography (1%). The odds of reporting gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51), education (OR = 1.81), and geography (OR = 2.72) increased with each subsequent publication date decade; however, this trend was not seen for reporting of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or insurance. The reporting of gender was less likely to be reported in studies with the pediatric participants (OR = 0.62), level II evidence (OR = 0.14), and device programming interventional studies (OR = 0.26). Conclusion: Reporting of sociodemographic data, other than gender, is low among prospective clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. The lack of reporting of this key data may limit research rigor and generalizability. Clinical researchers are advised to prospectively collect these data to promote equity in cochlear implant research and clinical care.

Background Demographics and socioeconomic status affect the delivery of medical care resulting in healthcare disparities. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on existing healthcare disparities, including access to healthcare in the outpatient orthopedic surgery clinic. Methods The medical records of 3006 patients treated at the University of Kentucky Orthopedic Surgery Department prior to COVID-19 (April 2018, 2019), and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) were retrospectively reviewed for demographic data, distance to clinic, and type of visit. We then compared the total number of patient visits, new patient visits, telehealth visits, and the patient’s insurance provider (public or private) between the time period prior to and during the pandemic. Results During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were significant declines in the number of patients seen, new patient presentations, and publicly insured patients. Thirty-three percent of visits were telemedicine visits in 2020 compared to 0% pre-COVID ( P < .0001). There was a lower proportion of initial visits in 2020 ( P < .0001). The majority of patients paid via private/commercial insurance (1798, 59.8%), with a greater proportion paying via private/commercial insurance in 2020 ( P < .001). The median average household income was increased in 2020 ( P < .001). Discussion While COVID-19 resulted in a significant decline in overall access to care, there were negative ramifications particularly on patients with new complaints and those of lower socioeconomic status. Future endeavors should be focused on correcting the obstacles to accessing care, exacerbated by the pandemic, that these vulnerable populations face.

ObjectivesTo conduct a scoping systematic review of the literature on the use of telemedicine to evaluate, diagnose, and manage patients with dizziness.Data SourcesWeb of Science, SCOPUS, and MEDLINE PubMed databases.Study SelectionThe inclusion criteria included the following: pertaining to telemedicine and the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, or management of dizziness. Exclusion criteria included the following: single-case studies, meta-analyses, and literature and systematic reviews.Data ExtractionOutcomes recorded for each article included the following: study type, patient population, telemedicine format, dizziness characteristics, level of evidence, and quality assessment.Data SynthesisThe search returned 15,408 articles, and a team of four screened the articles for inclusion criteria status. A total of 9 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included for review. Of the nine articles, four were randomized clinical trials, three were prospective cohort studies, and two were qualitative studies. The telemedicine format was synchronous in three studies and asynchronous in six studies. Two of the studies involved acute dizziness only, four involved chronic dizziness only, one involved both acute and chronic dizziness, and two did not specify dizziness type. Six of the studies included the diagnosis of dizziness, two involved the evaluation of dizziness, and three involved treatment/management. Some of the reported benefits of telemedicine for dizziness patients included cost savings, convenience, high patient satisfaction, and improvement in dizziness symptoms. Limitations included access to telemedicine technology, Internet connectivity, and dizziness symptoms interfering with the telemedicine application.ConclusionsFew studies investigate the evaluation, diagnosis, or management of dizziness using telemedicine. The lack of protocols and standards of care for telemedicine evaluation of dizzy patients creates some challenges in care delivery; however, these reviewed studies provide examples of the breadth of care that has been provided remotely.