ArticleDysphagia2026
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Dysphagia Care Access, Utilization, and Quality in the United States: A Scoping Review.
Article in Dysphagia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare access, utilization, and quality are well-documented, but have been largely unexplored for individuals with oropharyngeal dysphagia. We conducted a scoping review to (1) describe methods used to assess disparities in oropharyngeal dysphagia care, (2) summarize study findings, and (3) make recommendations for future research based on literature gaps. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL (January 1990-December 2024) for original experimental or observational studies evaluating associations between race and/or ethnicity and access to, utilization, or quality of oropharyngeal dysphagia care. Two reviewers completed title/abstract screening and full-text review. We extracted study metadata, methods, and results and synthesized findings quantitatively and narratively. We retrieved 3,201 records; after deduplication, 2,498 underwent title/abstract screening, 61 full-text review, and 9 were included. Studies varied substantially in definitions of dysphagia care, operationalization of race/ethnicity, data sources, and analytic approaches. Importantly, no studies examined disparities in access to care or quality of care. A key methodological finding was that results differed systematically by whether analyses accounted for clinical need: analyses controlling for proxies of need more often found lower utilization among Black patients (or no differences), whereas analyses without need adjustment more often reported similar or higher utilization among racially and ethnically minoritized groups. These findings underscore the need for more methodologically rigorous research on disparities across the dysphagia care continuum. We propose a framework to guide future studies and recommendations to improve measurement of care, race/ethnicity, and clinical need.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42287358What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.