Implementation of culturally responsive communication for racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minoritized patients when screened for COVID-19 vaccinations: A scoping review

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated long-standing healthcare disparities, disproportionately affecting racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minoritized populations. Structural inequities fuel medical mistrust and hinder equitable vaccine access. Culturally responsive communication (CRC) is a critical strategy in primary care that has the potential to improve patient-provider interactions and vaccine acceptance.

This scoping review examines how CRC is conceptualized and implemented in clinical interactions related to COVID-19 vaccination and booster screening for minoritized populations. It assesses the scope of CRC research, the clarity of definitions, the extent of implementation, and its clinical applicability.

Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a literature search across four databases, analyzing studies published between November 2019 and 2022. Extracted data included CRC definitions, communication strategies, and interventions from 22 eligible studies.

Research on CRC in the context of COVID-19 vaccination is limited and inconsistent. Most studies focused on Black and Hispanic populations, with a critical gap in research addressing sexual and gender minorities. CRC terminology was often interchangeable with concepts like cultural competence, leading to definitional inconsistencies. Because public health messaging was a primary focus, direct clinical applications of CRC were underexplored.

Our findings highlight an urgent need for a standardized CRC framework to enhance healthcare equity. The absence of a clear, universally accepted definition hinders CRC’s practical application and measurability in clinical settings. Future research should refine CRC conceptualization, establish measurable interventions, and expand inclusivity to sexual and gender minorities to foster more equitable healthcare practices. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Clinical Protocols https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0290514 Funding Statement Yes Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Not Applicable The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study is a scoping review and did not involve human participants, human specimens, vertebrate animals, or field research. No IRB approval was required. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Not Applicable I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Not Applicable I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Not Applicable Data Availability All relevant data are within the manuscript.