Under the umbrella of epistemic injustice communication and epistemic injustice in clinical encounters: a critical scoping review

Q3 Medicine
Liz Jonas , Sondra Bacharach , Sarah Nightingale , Sara Filoche
{"title":"Under the umbrella of epistemic injustice communication and epistemic injustice in clinical encounters: a critical scoping review","authors":"Liz Jonas ,&nbsp;Sondra Bacharach ,&nbsp;Sarah Nightingale ,&nbsp;Sara Filoche","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Concordant communication between a patient and healthcare practitioner is a critical proponent of effective care. Prejudiced communication from healthcare practitioners creates vulnerability for Epistemic Injustice and is a barrier to Culturally Safe Care. The language used to detect, address and mitigate instances of Epistemic Injustice during clinical interactions is currently unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This review seeks to address this gap by assessing current understandings of Epistemic Injustice during patient-healthcare practitioner clinical interactions and suggest pathways to promote health equity policy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study utilized Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology and Grant and Booth’s critical appraisal framework to review articles from four databases: WEB of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and Medline. Following a literature review to inform inclusion criteria, studies were assessed for detectable themes of Epistemic Injustice in relation to patient-healthcare practitioner communication during clinical encounters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Initially, 2729 studies were identified, and 44 studies were included. Two major themes are discussed in this review: (1) Types of Epistemic Injustice and (2) Counterparts of Epistemic Injustice.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Currently, literature does not directly discuss experiences of clinical Epistemic Injustice, rather discussion occurs across a network of similar linguistic identifiers, which hinders detection and subsequent mitigation of Epistemic Injustice in clinical settings. By modeling a definition for clinical Epistemic Injustice, educational resources from which patients, practitioners and policy developers alike can draw from are suggested. Basing future mitigation strategies on these findings supports pathways to reducing health disparity, especially for marginalized communities, and promoting equity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101039"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552524000744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Concordant communication between a patient and healthcare practitioner is a critical proponent of effective care. Prejudiced communication from healthcare practitioners creates vulnerability for Epistemic Injustice and is a barrier to Culturally Safe Care. The language used to detect, address and mitigate instances of Epistemic Injustice during clinical interactions is currently unknown.

Objective

This review seeks to address this gap by assessing current understandings of Epistemic Injustice during patient-healthcare practitioner clinical interactions and suggest pathways to promote health equity policy.

Methods

This study utilized Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology and Grant and Booth’s critical appraisal framework to review articles from four databases: WEB of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and Medline. Following a literature review to inform inclusion criteria, studies were assessed for detectable themes of Epistemic Injustice in relation to patient-healthcare practitioner communication during clinical encounters.

Results

Initially, 2729 studies were identified, and 44 studies were included. Two major themes are discussed in this review: (1) Types of Epistemic Injustice and (2) Counterparts of Epistemic Injustice.

Conclusions

Currently, literature does not directly discuss experiences of clinical Epistemic Injustice, rather discussion occurs across a network of similar linguistic identifiers, which hinders detection and subsequent mitigation of Epistemic Injustice in clinical settings. By modeling a definition for clinical Epistemic Injustice, educational resources from which patients, practitioners and policy developers alike can draw from are suggested. Basing future mitigation strategies on these findings supports pathways to reducing health disparity, especially for marginalized communities, and promoting equity.
在认知不公正的保护下,沟通和临床遭遇的认知不公正:一个关键的范围审查
患者和医疗保健从业人员之间的协调沟通是有效护理的关键支持者。来自医疗保健从业人员的偏见沟通造成了认知不公正的脆弱性,是文化安全护理的障碍。在临床相互作用中,用于检测、处理和减轻认知不公正实例的语言目前尚不清楚。目的:本综述旨在通过评估当前对患者-医疗保健从业者临床互动中认知不公正的理解来解决这一差距,并提出促进卫生公平政策的途径。方法本研究采用Arksey和O 'Malley的范围审查方法和Grant和Booth的批判性评估框架,对来自WEB of Science、SCOPUS、PsycINFO和Medline四个数据库的文章进行审查。通过文献综述来了解纳入标准,研究人员评估了与临床接触期间患者-医疗保健从业者沟通相关的可检测的认知不公正主题。结果最初,2729项研究被确定,44项研究被纳入。本文讨论了两个主要主题:(1)认识不公正的类型和(2)认识不公正的对应物。目前,文献并没有直接讨论临床认知不公正的经历,而是通过类似的语言标识符网络进行讨论,这阻碍了临床环境中认知不公正的发现和随后的缓解。通过对临床认知不公正的定义建模,建议患者、从业人员和政策制定者都可以从中汲取教育资源。将未来的缓解战略建立在这些发现的基础上,有助于减少健康差距,特别是边缘化社区的健康差距,并促进公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信