Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2020

Building a framework to decolonize global emergency medicine

Background

Global emergency medicine (GEM) is situated at the intersection of global health and emergency medicine (EM), which is built upon a history of colonial systems and institutions that continue to reinforce inequities between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) today. These power imbalances yield disparities in GEM practice, research, and education.

Approach

The Global Emergency Medicine Academy (GEMA) of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine formed the Decolonizing GEM Working Group in 2020, which now includes over 100 worldwide members. The mission is to address colonial legacies in GEM and catalyze sustainable changes and recommendations toward decolonization at individual and institutional levels. To develop recommendations to decolonize GEM, the group conducted a nonsystematic review of existing literature on decolonizing global health, followed by in-depth discussions between academics from LMICs and HICs to explore implications and challenges specific to GEM. We then synthesized actionable solutions to provide recommendations on decolonizing GEM.

Results

Despite the rapidly expanding body of literature on decolonizing global health, there is little guidance specific to the relatively new field of GEM. By applying decolonizing principles to GEM, we suggest key priorities for improving equity in academic GEM: (1) reframing partnerships to place LMIC academics in positions of expertise and power, (2) redirecting research funding toward LMIC-driven projects and investigators, (3) creating more equitable practices in establishing authorship, and (4) upholding principles of decolonization in the education of EM trainees from LMICs and HICs.

Conclusions

Understanding the colonial roots of GEM will allow us to look more critically at current health disparities and identify inequitable institutionalized practices within our profession that continue to uphold these misguided concepts. A decolonized future of GEM depends on our recognition and rectification of colonial-era practices that shape structural determinants of health care delivery and scientific advancement.

Global Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review of the Literature from 2022

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to identify the highest quality global emergency medicine (GEM) research published in 2022. The top articles are compiled in a comprehensive list of all the year's GEM articles and narrative summaries are performed on those included.

METHODS

A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify all GEM articles published in 2022 and included a manual supplemental screen of 11 organizational websites for gray literature (GRAY). A team of trained reviewers and editors screened all identified titles and abstracts, based on three case definition categories: disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). Articles meeting these definitions were independently scored by two reviewers using rubrics for original research (OR), review (RE) articles, and GRAY. Articles that scored in the top 5% from each category as well as the overall top 5% of articles were included for narrative summary.

RESULTS

The 2022 search identified 58,510 articles in the main review, of which 524 articles screened in for scoring, respectively, 30% and 18% increases from last year. After duplicates were removed, 36 articles were included for narrative summary. The GRAY search identified 7755 articles, of which 33 were scored and one was included for narrative summary. ECRLS remained the largest category (27; 73%), followed by DHR (7; 19%) and EMD (3; 8%). OR articles remained more common than RE articles (64% vs. 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

The waning of the COVID-19 pandemic has not affected the continued growth in GEM literature. Articles related to prehospital care, mental health and resilience among patients and health care workers, streamlining pediatric infectious disease care, and disaster preparedness were featured in this year's review. The continued lack of EMD studies despite the global growth of GEM highlights a need for more scholarly dissemination of best practices.

Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2021

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to identify the most important and impactful peer-reviewed global emergency medicine (GEM) articles published in 2021. The top articles are summarized in brief narratives and accompanied by a comprehensive list of all identified articles that address the topic during the year to serve as a reference for clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

METHODS

A systematic PubMed search was carried out to identify all GEM articles published in 2021. Title and abstract screening was performed by trained reviewers and editors to identify articles in one of three categories based on predefined criteria: disaster and humanitarian response (DHR), emergency care in resource-limited settings (ECRLS), and emergency medicine development (EMD). Included articles were each scored by two reviewers using established rubrics for original (OR) and review (RE) articles. The top 5% of articles overall and the top 5% of articles from each category (DHR, ECRLS, EMD, OR, and RE) were included for narrative summary.

RESULTS

The 2021 search identified 44,839 articles, of which 444 articles screened in for scoring, 25% and 22% increases from 2020, respectively. After removal of duplicates, 23 articles were included for narrative summary. ECRLS constituted the largest category (n = 16, 70%), followed by EMD (n = 4, 17%) and DHR (n = 3, 13%). The majority of top articles were OR (n = 14, 61%) compared to RE (n = 9, 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

The GEM peer-reviewed literature continued to grow at a fast rate in 2021, reflecting the continued expansion and maturation of this subspecialty of emergency medicine. Few high-quality articles focused on DHR and EMD, suggesting a need for further efforts in those fields. Future efforts should focus on improving the diversity of GEM research and equitable representation.

Authorship representation in global emergency medicine: a bibliometric analysis from 2016 to 2020

Introduction

High-income country (HIC) authors are disproportionately represented in authorship bylines compared with those affiliated with low and middle-income countries (LMICs) in global health research. An assessment of authorship representation in the global emergency medicine (GEM) literature is lacking but may inform equitable academic collaborations in this relatively new field.

Methods

We conducted a bibliometric analysis of original research articles reporting studies conducted in LMICs from the annual GEM Literature Review from 2016 to 2020. Data extracted included study topic, journal, study country(s) and region, country income classification, author order, country(s) of authors’ affiliations and funding sources. We compared the proportion of authors affiliated with each income bracket using Χ² analysis. We conducted logistic regression to identify factors associated with first or last authorship affiliated with the study country.

Results

There were 14 113 authors in 1751 articles. Nearly half (45.5%) of the articles reported work conducted in lower middle-income countries (MICs), 23.6% in upper MICs, 22.5% in low-income countries (LICs). Authors affiliated with HICs were most represented (40.7%); 26.4% were affiliated with lower MICs, 17.4% with upper MICs, 10.3% with LICs and 5.1% with mixed affiliations. Among single-country studies, those without any local authors (8.7%) were most common among those conducted in LICs (14.4%). Only 31.0% of first authors and 21.3% of last authors were affiliated with LIC study countries. Studies in upper MICs (adjusted OR (aOR) 3.6, 95% CI 2.46 to 5.26) and those funded by the study country (aOR 2.94, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.20) had greater odds of having a local first author.

Conclusions

There were significant disparities in authorship representation. Authors affiliated with HICs more commonly occupied the most prominent authorship positions. Recognising and addressing power imbalances in international, collaborative emergency medicine (EM) research is warranted. Innovative methods are needed to increase funding opportunities and other support for EM researchers in LMICs, particularly in LICs.