2021
DOI: 10.3399/bjgpo.2021.0034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ethnicity and socioeconomic status: missing in research means missing in clinical guidance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With as many as four in ten people identifying to be from a CALD background, the lack of inclusion of people from non‐English speaking backgrounds in research related to PR indicates the possibility of missing a sizeable proportion of the patient population when evaluating the effects of PR. More importantly, the findings highlight the importance of identification of CALD and the need to include ethnicity as a variable when collecting data related to prevalence of disease for both research and government reports, which remains to be rarely reported in studies globally (Beard et al., 2021; Flanagin et al., 2021). Using the recent Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing report on COPD as an example (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2020), increased prevalence of COPD among people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background and lower socioeconomic areas was reported, but differences in prevalence of COPD among ethnic groups were not reported.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…With as many as four in ten people identifying to be from a CALD background, the lack of inclusion of people from non‐English speaking backgrounds in research related to PR indicates the possibility of missing a sizeable proportion of the patient population when evaluating the effects of PR. More importantly, the findings highlight the importance of identification of CALD and the need to include ethnicity as a variable when collecting data related to prevalence of disease for both research and government reports, which remains to be rarely reported in studies globally (Beard et al., 2021; Flanagin et al., 2021). Using the recent Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing report on COPD as an example (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2020), increased prevalence of COPD among people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background and lower socioeconomic areas was reported, but differences in prevalence of COPD among ethnic groups were not reported.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…With as many as four in ten people identifying to be from a CALD background, the lack of inclusion of people from non-English speaking backgrounds in research related to PR indicates the possibility of missing a sizeable proportion of the patient population when evaluating the effects of PR. More importantly, the findings highlight the importance of identification of CALD and the need to include ethnicity as a variable when collecting data related to prevalence of disease for both reand government reports, which remains to be rarely reported in studies globally (Beard et al, 2021;Flanagin et al, 2021)…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…First, it risks those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale continuing to be underrepresented and underserved. 40 Second, it suggests a conflation of ethnicity with disadvantage and deprivation, an oversimplified analysis of the position of ethnic minorities in society. In the UK, certain ethnic minorities (Chinese, Indian) outperform white populations on a number of parameters including educational attainment, and within-group variation is wide though most ethnic minorities are however over-represented compared with white populations in the most deprived decile.…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The implications of language-based exclusion in research are that essential data could be missed; including how different groups of people present clinically in relation to disease, or differences in responsivity to treatments 6–9. Exclusion based on language ability has the potential to lead to greater disparities in health outcomes, as well as limiting the generalisability of the study outcomes 9.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%