Association of Language Barriers With Perioperative and Surgical Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: English language proficiency has been reported to correlate with disparities in health outcomes. Therefore, it is important to identify and describe the association of language barriers with perioperative care and surgical outcomes to inform efforts aimed at reducing health care disparities. Objective: To examine whether limited English proficiency compared with English proficiency in adult patients is associated with differences in perioperative care and surgical outcomes. Evidence Review: A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, and CINAHL of all English-language publications from database inception to December 7, 2022. Searches included Medical Subject Headings terms related to language barriers, perioperative or surgical care, and perioperative outcomes. Studies that investigated adults in perioperative settings and involved quantitative data comparing cohorts with limited English proficiency and English proficiency were included. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Because of heterogeneity in analysis and reported outcomes, data were not pooled for quantitative analysis. Results are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. Findings: Of 2230 unique records identified, 29 were eligible for inclusion (281 266 total patients; mean [SD] age, 57.2 [10.0] years; 121 772 [43.3%] male and 159 240 [56.6%] female). Included studies were observational cohort studies, except for a single cross-sectional study. Median cohort size was 1763 (IQR, 266-7402), with a median limited English proficiency cohort size of 179 (IQR, 51-671). Six studies explored access to surgery, 4 assessed delays in surgical care, 14 assessed surgical admission length of stay, 4 assessed discharge disposition, 10 assessed mortality, 5 assessed postoperative complications, 9 assessed unplanned readmissions, 2 assessed pain management, and 3 assessed functional outcomes. Surgical patients with limited English proficiency were more likely to experience reduced access in 4 of 6 studies, delays in obtaining care in 3 of 4 studies, longer surgical admission length of stay in 6 of 14 studies, and more likely discharge to a skilled facility than patients with English proficiency in 3 of 4 studies. Some additional differences in associations were found between patients with limited English proficiency who spoke Spanish vs other languages. Mortality, postoperative complications, and unplanned readmissions had fewer significant associations with English proficiency status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, most of the included studies found associations between English proficiency and multiple perioperative process-of-care outcomes, but fewer associations were seen between English proficiency and clinical outcomes. Because of limitations of the existing research, including study heterogeneity and residual confounding, mediators of the observed associations remain unclear. Standardized reporting and higher-quality studies are needed to understand the impact of language barriers on perioperative health disparities and identify opportunities to reduce related perioperative health care disparities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,078 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».