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.

Beyond the Basics: A Novel Approach to Integrating a Social Determinants of Health Curriculum into an Emergency Medicine Course.

Background: Our aim was to implement and evaluate a novel social determinants of health (SDoH) curriculum into the required fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) course at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine with the goal to teach students how to assess and address SDoH in clinical practice. The objectives were as follows: 1. Assess the SDoH, risk factors, and barriers to healthcare facing patients from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds in the ED. 2. Examine how social work consult services operate in the ED setting and how to identify appropriate referrals, resources, and treatment plans for patients in the ED. 3. Examine and interpret the impact health disparities have on patients in the ED and develop potential solutions to reduce these disparities to improve health outcomes. 4. Analyze the experiences and lessons learned and use them to inform future patient interactions. Curricular Design: The curriculum was developed by a workgroup that considered the following: scope; target learners; overall structure; instructional and delivery methods; and session scheduling. The curriculum consisted of four components that took place over the four-week EM course. Students completed a required end-of-course survey. Survey results underwent a mixed-methods analysis to assess student attitudes and the impact of the curriculum. Impact/Effectiveness: We received a 78.7% (74/94) completion rate for the 2021-2022 academic year. Of all respondents, 92% (68/74) indicated that they would apply lessons learned from the SDoH components of the curriculum; 74% (54/74) rated the SDoH curriculum as good, very good, or excellent; and 81% (60/74) felt that the EM course increased their understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion as it relates to the practice of medicine. The thematic analyses revealed four main themes: 1) general comments; 2) course design; 3) interprofessional collaboration; and 4) expanding the scope of the curriculum. Conclusion: Social medicine integration into core EM courses is a generalizable approach to experiential and collaborative exposure to the social determinants of health. Of student respondents, 92% indicated they will use lessons learned from this curriculum in their future practice. This can improve the way future generations of physicians identify SDoH and address the social needs that affect their patients, thereby advancing and promoting health equity.

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.