ImportanceThe inclusion of non–English-speaking (NES) participants in pediatric research is an essential step to improving health equity for these populations. Although some studies have shown lack of progress in NES research participation in the past decade, few have examined NES inclusivity in pediatric research or details about the practices that researchers have used to communicate with NES participants.ObjectiveTo assess how frequently NES families were included in pediatric research, how rates of inclusion changed over time, what languages were included, and methodological details about oral and written communication with NES participants.Evidence ReviewIn this review, all original investigation articles published in JAMA Pediatrics, Pediatrics, and The Journal of Pediatrics between January 2012 and November 2021 were screened. Eligible articles, which included those based in the US and with human participants, were reviewed to determine whether they included or excluded NES participants or whether or not there was specific mention of language. A second-round review was conducted on the subset of articles that included NES participants to determine methodological details (eg, languages included, type of study, region where the study was located, and oral and written communication practices with NES participants).FindingsOf the 8142 articles screened, 5008 (62%) met inclusion criteria; of these, 469 (9%) included NES participants. The most common language was Spanish (350 [75%]); 145 articles (31%) reported non-English or other language without specification. A total of 230 articles (49%) reported the number of NES participants, and 61 (13%) specified the methods used to determine whether participants preferred a language other than English. In all, 101 (22%) and 136 (29%) articles specified how oral and written communication occurred with NES participants, respectively.Conclusions and RelevanceThis review of 3 pediatric journals provides preliminary evidence suggesting exclusion of NES communities from pediatric research from 2012 to 2021 and highlights an opportunity to provide more methodological detail about communication with NES participants. Best practices for improving inclusivity of NES participants are needed to guide researchers toward improved methods and more relevant results.
Background Misinformation and conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are increasing. Some of this may stem from early reports suggesting a lower risk of severe COVID-19 in nicotine users. Additionally, a common conspiracy is that the e-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak of 2019 was actually an early presentation of COVID-19. This may have important public health ramifications for both COVID-19 control and ENDS use. Objective Twitter is an ideal tool for analyzing real-time public discussions related to both ENDS and COVID-19. This study seeks to collect and classify Twitter messages (“tweets”) related to ENDS and COVID-19 to inform public health messaging. Methods Approximately 2.1 million tweets matching ENDS-related keywords were collected from March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020, and were then filtered for COVID-19–related keywords, resulting in 67,321 original tweets. A 5% (n=3366) subsample was obtained for human coding using a systematically developed codebook. Tweets were coded for relevance to the topic and four overarching categories. Results A total of 1930 (57.3%) tweets were coded as relevant to the research topic. Half (n=1008, 52.2%) of these discussed a perceived association between ENDS use and COVID-19 susceptibility or severity, with 42.4% (n=818) suggesting that ENDS use is associated with worse COVID-19 symptoms. One-quarter (n=479, 24.8%) of tweets discussed the perceived similarity/dissimilarity of COVID-19 and EVALI, and 13.8% (n=266) discussed ENDS use behavior. Misinformation and conspiracy theories were present throughout all coding categories. Conclusions Discussions about ENDS use and COVID-19 on Twitter frequently highlight concerns about the susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 for ENDS users; however, many contain misinformation and conspiracy theories. Public health messaging should capitalize on these concerns and amplify accurate Twitter messaging.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.