ReviewThe journal of pain2025
Pain disparities attributed to linguistic minoritization in health care settings.
Review in The journal of pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disparities in the use of anxiolysis or sedation for facial laceration repair in the pediatric emergency department.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring Spanish-speaking patients' perspectives on obstetric anesthesia patient education materials.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Predictors of postoperative recovery using self-reported HRQoL among children undergoing elective surgery.Paediatrics & child health · 2026Article
- "Morbus Mediterraneus" and its impact on medical care in Germany: the intersection of pain and racism.BMC medical ethics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a paucity of understanding about how language influences pain communication and outcomes for families who speak languages other than English in the United States. This is of great importance because 21.6% (68 million) of the population speak a language other than English, with 8% (25 million) of the population speaking English "less than very well." Thus, the aim of this paper is to present a narrative review that describes how spoken language influences pediatric pain assessment and outcomes for children who speak languages other than English and discuss hypothesized factors that contribute to pain disparities in hospital settings. Results from the narrative review reveal that children and families who speak languages other than English have disparate pain outcomes compared with children from English-speaking families. It is hypothesized that individual (eg, clinician bias), interpersonal (eg, miscommunication of pain concepts), cultural (eg, misunderstanding of cultural concepts of pain), and systemic (eg, lack of access to interpretation services) factors influence disparate pain outcomes for linguistically minoritized children. Empirical research, including randomized control trials, regarding hypothesized factors that contribute to pediatric pain disparities for language other than English-speaking children, is severely lacking. Thus, improved understanding of pain concepts and pain communication processes that center individual, interpersonal, cultural, and systemic factors will enable future research to design interventions that enhance culturally relevant pain assessment and management for families who speak languages other than English. PERSPECTIVE: This article summarizes factors that contribute to pain disparities for children who speak languages other than English. Hypothesized factors that contribute to pain disparities for language other than English-speaking children and families include clinician bias, misunderstanding of pain concepts, and lack of access to interpretation services.
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.