%0 Systematic Review
%T Geospatial and Socioeconomic Disparities Influencing the Management and Outcomes of Nonsyndromic Craniosynostosis: A Systematic Review.
%A Belza CC
%A Sheahan L
%A Becker M
%A Gosman AA
%J J Craniofac Surg
%V 35
%N 5
%D 2024 Jul-Aug 1
%M 39042067
%F 1.172
%R 10.1097/SCS.0000000000010162
%X Geospatial and socioeconomic health disparities are potential barriers to timely diagnosis and treatment of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. This systematic review aims to assess published literature describing disparities in craniosynostosis care and to summarize the findings surrounding patient proximity to care centers and familial socioeconomic status as predictors of surgical management and outcomes. The data sources used include PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist was used for appraisal of the quality of the studies included. Generally, the literature reviewed suggested that socioeconomic variables including race, insurance payor, and median zip code income quartile are predictors of suboptimal craniosynostosis surgical management outcomes including older age at time of surgery and more invasive surgical approach performed. The only geospatial data element assessed was the general region of the hospital where the patient was treated. The review highlighted various knowledge gaps within published literature describing health-related disparities in patients with craniosynostosis. There is a paucity of research assessing geospatial access to craniosynostosis care centers, suggesting that further research should be performed to evaluate this potential disparity. In addition, previous studies lack granularity when assessing socioeconomic factors and only one study accounted for suture fused, which is a potential confounding variable across the other published work. These considerations should be addressed in future studies addressing this topic. The limitations of this review include potential publication bias given that unpublished work was not included. An element of reviewer bias also exists considering only one reviewer screened the articles and extracted the data.