ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Healthcare delivery to patients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in emergency care: a scoping review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Health and social services utilisation of adults with a cochlear implant: evidence from a national person-level integrated data asset in Australia.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide, the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) population is increasing, and is predicted to reach 405 million by 2050. The delivery of emergency care for the CALD population can be complex due to cultural, social, and language factors. The extent to which cultural, social, and contextual factors influence care delivery to patients from CALD backgrounds throughout their emergency care journey is unclear. Using a systematic approach, this review aims to map the existing evidence regarding emergency healthcare delivery for patients from CALD backgrounds and uses a social ecological framework to provide a broader perspective on cultural, social, and contextual influence on emergency care delivery.
methodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology will be used to guide this review. The population is patients from CALD backgrounds who received care and emergency care clinicians who provided direct care. The concept is healthcare delivery to patients from CALD backgrounds. The context is emergency care. This review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies published in English from January 1, 2012, onwards. Searches will be conducted in the databases of CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), SocINDEX (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier), and a web search of Google Scholar. A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram will be used to present the search decision process. All included articles will be appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Data will be presented in tabular form and accompanied by a narrative synthesis of the literature. DISCUSSION: Despite the increased use of emergency care service by patients from CALD backgrounds, there has been no comprehensive review of healthcare delivery to patients from CALD backgrounds in the emergency care context (ED and prehospital settings) that includes consideration of cultural, social, and contextual influences. The results of this scoping review may be used to inform future research and strategies that aim to enhance care delivery and experiences for people from CALD backgrounds who require emergency care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This scoping review has been registered in the Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HTMKQ.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.