Search

Introduction: The application of structural competency and structural vulnerability to emergency medicine (EM) research has not been previously described despite EM researchers routinely engaging structurally vulnerable populations. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review and consensus-building process to develop a structurally competent research approach and operational framework relevant to EM research. Methods: We conducted a scoping review focused on structural competency and structural vulnerability. Results of the review informed the development of a structural competency research framework that was presented throughout a multi-step consensus process culminating in the 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference. Feedback to the framework was incorporated throughout the conference. Results: The scoping review produced 291 articles with 123 articles relevant to EM research. All 123 articles underwent full-text review and data extraction following a standardized data extraction form. Most of the articles acknowledged or described structures that lead to inequities with a variety of methodological approaches used to operationalize structural competency and/or structural vulnerability. The framework developed aligned with components of the research process, drawing upon methodologies from studies included in the scoping review. Conclusion: The framework developed provides a starting point for EM researchers seeking to understand, acknowledge, and incorporate structural competency into EM research. By incorporating components of the framework, researchers may enhance their ability to address social, historical, political, and economic forces that lead to health inequities, reframing drivers of inequities away from individual factors and focusing on structural factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the last 3 years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) declared advancement of understanding the role sex as a biological variable has in research a priority. The burden now falls on educators and clinicians to translate into clinical practice the ensuing body of evidence for sex as a biological variable that clearly shows the effect of sex/gender on disease diagnosis and management. The 2018 Sex and Gender Health Education Summit (SGHE) organized an interdisciplinary and interprofessional workshop to (1) analyze common clinical scenarios highlighting the nuances of sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) in presentation, diagnosis, or management of illness; (2) utilize valid educational and assessment tools for a multiprofessional audience; and (3) brainstorm standardized learning objectives that integrate both. Materials and Methods: We describe the iterative process used to create these scenarios, as well as an interprofessional forum to develop standardized SGBM case-based objectives. Results: A total of 170 health education professionals representing 137 schools of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Public Health, Nursing, Physical, and Occupational Therapy participated in this workshop. After attending the workshop, participants reported a significant increase in comfort level with using diverse educational modalities in the instruction of health profession learners. Recurrent themes included case-based learning, use of sex-neutral cases, simulation, and standardized patient scenarios for educational modalities; and self-assessment, peer assessment, and review of clinical documentation as used assessment tools. Materials created for the workshop included teaching SGBM case scenarios, methods of assessment, and sample standardized objectives. Conclusion: The SGHE Summit provided an interdisciplinary forum to create educational tools and materials for SABV instruction that may be applied to a diverse audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significant sex and gender differences in both physiology and psychology are readily acknowledged between men and women; however, data are lacking regarding differences in their responses to injury and treatment and in their ultimate recovery and survival. These variations remain particularly poorly defined within the field of cardiovascular resuscitation. A better understanding of the interaction between these important factors may soon allow us to dramatically improve outcomes in disease processes that currently carry a dismal prognosis, such as sudden cardiac arrest. As part of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference 'Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Medicine: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes,' our group sought to identify key research questions and knowledge gaps pertaining to both sex and gender in cardiac resuscitation that could be answered in the near future to inform our understanding of these important issues. We combined a monthly teleconference meeting of interdisciplinary stakeholders from largely academic institutions with a focused interest in cardiovascular outcomes research, an extensive review of the existing literature, and an open breakout session discussion on the recommendations at the consensus conference to establish a prioritization of the knowledge gaps and relevant research questions in this area. We identified six priority research areas: 1) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest epidemiology and outcome, 2) customized resuscitation drugs, 3) treatment role for sex steroids, 4) targeted temperature management and hypothermia, 5) withdrawal of care after cardiac arrest, and 6) cardiopulmonary resuscitation training and implementation. We believe that exploring these key topics and identifying relevant questions may directly lead to improved understanding of sex- and gender-specific issues seen in cardiac resuscitation and ultimately improved patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

With the goal of reducing inequalities in patient care, the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine ( AEM) consensus conference, 'Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes,' convened a diverse group of researchers, clinicians, health care providers, patients, and representatives of federal agencies and policy-makers in Dallas, Texas, in May 2014. The executive and steering committees identified seven clinical domains as key to gender-specific emergency care: cardiovascular, neurological, trauma/injury, substance abuse, pain, mental health, and diagnostic imaging. The main aims of the conference were to: 1) summarize and consolidate current data related to sex- and gender-specific research for acute care and identify critical gender-related gaps in knowledge to inform an EM research agenda; 2) create a consensus-driven research agenda that advances sex- and gender-specific research in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of acute diseases and identify strategies to investigate them; and 3) build a multinational interdisciplinary consortium to disseminate and study the sex and gender medicine of acute conditions. Over a 2-year period, this collaborative network of stakeholders identified key areas where sex- and gender-specific research is most likely to improve clinical care and ultimately patient outcomes. The iterative consensus process culminated in a daylong conference on May 13, 2014, with a total of 133 registrants, with the majority being between ages 31 and 50 years (57%), females (71%), and whites (79%). Content experts led the consensus-building workshops at the conference and used the nominal group technique to consolidate consensus recommendations for priority research. In addition, panel sessions addressed funding mechanisms for gender-specific research as well as gender-specific regulatory challenges to product development and approval. This special issue of AEM reports the results of the 2014 consensus conference as well as related original research with the goal of bringing high-quality equitable care to male and female emergency patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On May 13, 2014, a 1-hour panel discussion session titled 'Gender-specific Regulatory Challenges to Product Approval' was held during the Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, 'Gender-specific Research in Emergency Medicine: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes.' The session sought to bring together leaders in emergency medicine (EM) research, authors, and reviewers in EM research publications, as well as faculty, fellows, residents, and students engaged in research and clinical practice. A panel was convened involving a representative from the Office of Women's Health of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, two pharmaceutical executives, and a clinical EM researcher. The moderated discussion also involved audience members who contributed significantly to the dialogue. Historical background leading up to the session along with the main themes of the discussion are reproduced in this article. These revolve around sex- and gender-specific research, statistical analysis of sex and gender, clinical practice, financial costs associated with pharmaceutical development, adaptive design, and specific recommendations on the regulatory process as it affects the specialty of EM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article outlines the history, need, and evolution of gender medicine in emergency care research. Clinical examples are used where sex and gender play a role in diagnosis, management, or prognosis of patients in the emergency department ( ED). The ED serves as an ideal setting to advance sex- and gender-specific research as the primary access point for health care for much of the U.S. population, with more than 136 million annual visits. Gender medicine provides the biologic and social framework to provide high-quality, safe, equitable, and cost-effective sex- and gender-specific care in the ED. With a 24-hour hospital presence, and with access to high-acuity patients, emergency physicians are well positioned to lead sex- and gender-specific clinical studies for time-sensitive conditions and also to serve as vital partners in interdisciplinary research projects. The ED also provides the primary access point for less life-threatening conditions such as substance abuse, mental health, and pain management (both acute and chronic). Because one-fifth of the U.S. population is without health insurance, and many more lack a regular provider or rapid access to their providers, the ED is often the only point of contact for advancing gender medicine in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain is a leading public health problem in the United States, with an annual economic burden of more than $630 billion, and is one of the most common reasons that individuals seek emergency department (ED) care. There is a paucity of data regarding sex differences in the assessment and treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions in the ED. The Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference convened in Dallas, Texas, in May 2014 to develop a research agenda to address this issue among others related to sex differences in the ED. Prior to the conference, experts and stakeholders from emergency medicine and the pain research field reviewed the current literature and identified eight candidate priority areas. At the conference, these eight areas were reviewed and all eight were ratified using a nominal group technique to build consensus. These priority areas were: 1) gender differences in the pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain, including differences in opioid tolerance, side effects, or misuse; 2) gender differences in pain severity perceptions, clinically meaningful differences in acute pain, and pain treatment preferences; 3) gender differences in pain outcomes of ED patients across the life span; 4) gender differences in the relationship between acute pain and acute psychological responses; 5) the influence of physician-patient gender differences and characteristics on the assessment and treatment of pain; 6) gender differences in the influence of acute stress and chronic stress on acute pain responses; 7) gender differences in biological mechanisms and molecular pathways mediating acute pain in ED populations; and 8) gender differences in biological mechanisms and molecular pathways mediating chronic pain development after trauma, stress, or acute illness exposure. These areas represent priority areas for future scientific inquiry, and gaining understanding in these will be essential to improving our understanding of sex and gender differences in the assessment and treatment of pain conditions in emergency care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference 'Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes,' we assembled a diverse panel of representatives from federal and nonfederal funding agencies to discuss future opportunities for sex- and gender-specific research. The discussion revolved around the mission and priorities of each organization, as well as its interest in promoting sex- and gender-specific research. The panelists were asked to provide specific examples of funding lines generated or planned for as pertinent to emergency care. Training opportunities for future researchers in this area were also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference 'Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Medicine: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes' convened a diverse group of stakeholders to target gaps in emergency medicine ( EM) sex- and gender-specific research and identify research priorities. At the close of the conference, the executive committee sought feedback from group leaders and conference attendees about the next critical steps in EM sex- and gender-specific research, goals for their own future research, and anticipated barriers in pursuing this research. This article summarizes this feedback on the future directions in sex- and gender-specific research in emergency care and strategies to overcome barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergency department ( ED) is the point of first contact for patients with acute heart failure and arrhythmias, with 1 million annual ED visits in the United States. Although the total numbers of men and women living with heart failure are similar, female patients are underrepresented in clinical studies, with current knowledge predominantly based on data from male patients. This has led to an underappreciation of the sex-specific differences in clinical characteristics and pathophysiology-based management of heart failure. Similar disparities have been found in management of acute arrhythmias, especially atrial arrhythmias that lead to an increased risk of stroke in women. Additionally, peripartum and postpartum cardiomyopathy represent a diagnostic and treatment dilemma. This article is the result of a breakout session in the cardiovascular and resuscitation work group of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference 'Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Medicine: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes.' A nominal group technique was used to identify and prioritize themes and research questions using electronic mail, monthly conference calls, in-person meetings, and Web-based surveys between June 2013 and May 2014. Consensus was achieved through three rounds of nomination followed by the meeting on May 13, 2014, and resulted in seven priority themes that are essential to the common complex clinical syndrome of heart failure for both men and women and include the areas of pathophysiology; presentation and symptomatology; and diagnostic strategies using biomarkers, treatment, and mortality, with special consideration to arrhythmia management and pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronary artery disease ( CAD) is the most common cause of death for both men and women. However, over the years, emergency physicians, cardiologists, and other health care practitioners have observed varying outcomes in men and women with symptomatic CAD. Women in general are 10 to 15 years older than men when they develop CAD, but suffer worse postinfarction outcomes compared to age-matched men. This article was developed by the cardiovascular workgroup at the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine ( AEM) consensus conference to identify sex- and gender-specific gaps in the key themes and research questions related to emergency cardiac ischemia care. The workgroup had diverse stakeholder representation from emergency medicine, cardiology, critical care, nursing, emergency medical services, patients, and major policy-makers in government, academia, and patient care. We implemented the nominal group technique to identify and prioritize themes and research questions using electronic mail, monthly conference calls, in-person meetings, and Web-based surveys between June 2013 and May 2014. Through three rounds of nomination and refinement, followed by an in-person meeting on May 13, 2014, we achieved consensus on five priority themes and 30 research questions. The overarching themes were as follows: 1) the full spectrum of sex-specific risk as well as presentation of cardiac ischemia may not be captured by our standard definition of CAD and needs to incorporate other forms of ischemic heart disease ( IHD); 2) diagnosis is further challenged by sex/gender differences in presentation and variable sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers, imaging, and risk scores; 3) sex-specific pathophysiology of cardiac ischemia extends beyond conventional obstructive CAD to include other causes such as microvascular dysfunction, takotsubo, and coronary artery dissection, better recognized as IHD; 4) treatment and prognosis are influenced by sex-specific variations in biology, as well as patient-provider communication; and 5) the changing definitions of pathophysiology call for looking beyond conventionally defined cardiovascular outcomes to patient-centered outcomes. These emergency care priorities should guide future clinical and basic science research and extramural funding in an area that greatly influences patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]