Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The intersection of ageism and racism is underexplored in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM) research.
METHODS: We performed a scoping review of research published between January 2016 and December 2021. We included original emergency department-based research focused on falls, delirium/dementia, medication safety, and elder abuse. We excluded manuscripts that did not include (1) original research data pertaining to the four core topics, (2) older adults, (3) subjects from the United States, and (4) for which full text publication could not be obtained. The primary objective was to qualitatively describe reporting about older adults\' social identities in GEM research. Secondary objectives were to describe (1) the extent of inclusion of minoritized older adults in GEM research, (2) GEM research about health equity, and (3) feasible approaches to improve the status quo of GEM research reporting.
RESULTS: After duplicates were removed, 3277 citations remained and 883 full-text articles were reviewed, of which 222 met inclusion criteria. Four findings emerged. First, race and ethnicity reporting was inconsistent. Second, research rarely provided a rationale for an age threshold used to define geriatric patients. Third, GEM research more commonly reported sex than gender. Fourth, research commonly excluded older adults with cognitive impairment and speakers of non-English primary languages.
CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful assessment of GEM research inclusivity is limited by inconsistent reporting of sociodemographic characteristics, specifically race and ethnicity. Reporting of sociodemographic characteristics should be standardized across different study designs. Strategies are needed to include in GEM research older adults with cognitive impairment and non-English primary languages.
METHODS: We performed a scoping review of research published between January 2016 and December 2021. We included original emergency department-based research focused on falls, delirium/dementia, medication safety, and elder abuse. We excluded manuscripts that did not include (1) original research data pertaining to the four core topics, (2) older adults, (3) subjects from the United States, and (4) for which full text publication could not be obtained. The primary objective was to qualitatively describe reporting about older adults\' social identities in GEM research. Secondary objectives were to describe (1) the extent of inclusion of minoritized older adults in GEM research, (2) GEM research about health equity, and (3) feasible approaches to improve the status quo of GEM research reporting.
RESULTS: After duplicates were removed, 3277 citations remained and 883 full-text articles were reviewed, of which 222 met inclusion criteria. Four findings emerged. First, race and ethnicity reporting was inconsistent. Second, research rarely provided a rationale for an age threshold used to define geriatric patients. Third, GEM research more commonly reported sex than gender. Fourth, research commonly excluded older adults with cognitive impairment and speakers of non-English primary languages.
CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful assessment of GEM research inclusivity is limited by inconsistent reporting of sociodemographic characteristics, specifically race and ethnicity. Reporting of sociodemographic characteristics should be standardized across different study designs. Strategies are needed to include in GEM research older adults with cognitive impairment and non-English primary languages.
摘要：
背景：老年急诊医学（GEM）研究中年龄歧视和种族主义的交集不足。
方法：我们对2016年1月至2021年12月发表的研究进行了范围审查。我们纳入了最初的急诊科研究，重点是跌倒，谵妄/痴呆,用药安全,还有虐待老人.我们排除了不包括（1）与四个核心主题有关的原始研究数据的手稿，（2）老年人，（3）受试者来自美国，(4)无法获得全文出版。主要目的是定性地描述GEM研究中有关老年人社会身份的报道。次要目标是描述(1)在GEM研究中纳入小型化老年人的程度，(2)关于健康公平的创业板研究，(3)改善创业板研究报告现状的可行方法。
结果：删除重复项之后，仍有3277篇引文，共审查了883篇全文文章，其中222人符合纳入标准。出现了四个发现。首先,种族和民族报告不一致.第二,研究很少提供用于定义老年患者的年龄阈值的基本原理.第三，GEM研究报告的性别比性别更常见。第四，研究通常排除有认知障碍的老年人和非英语主要语言使用者.
结论：对GEM研究包容性的有意义的评估受到社会人口统计学特征报告不一致的限制，特别是种族和民族。社会人口统计学特征的报告应在不同的研究设计中标准化。需要在GEM研究中包括患有认知障碍和非英语主要语言的老年人的策略。
方法：我们对2016年1月至2021年12月发表的研究进行了范围审查。我们纳入了最初的急诊科研究，重点是跌倒，谵妄/痴呆,用药安全,还有虐待老人.我们排除了不包括（1）与四个核心主题有关的原始研究数据的手稿，（2）老年人，（3）受试者来自美国，(4)无法获得全文出版。主要目的是定性地描述GEM研究中有关老年人社会身份的报道。次要目标是描述(1)在GEM研究中纳入小型化老年人的程度，(2)关于健康公平的创业板研究，(3)改善创业板研究报告现状的可行方法。
结果：删除重复项之后，仍有3277篇引文，共审查了883篇全文文章，其中222人符合纳入标准。出现了四个发现。首先,种族和民族报告不一致.第二,研究很少提供用于定义老年患者的年龄阈值的基本原理.第三，GEM研究报告的性别比性别更常见。第四，研究通常排除有认知障碍的老年人和非英语主要语言使用者.
结论：对GEM研究包容性的有意义的评估受到社会人口统计学特征报告不一致的限制，特别是种族和民族。社会人口统计学特征的报告应在不同的研究设计中标准化。需要在GEM研究中包括患有认知障碍和非英语主要语言的老年人的策略。
