Under the umbrella of epistemic injustice communication and epistemic injustice in clinical encounters: a critical scoping review
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, ISSN: 2352-5525, Vol: 33, Page: 101039
2025
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Bibliographic Details
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know