Epistemic injustice in healthcare: a philosophial analysis

Lost and changed meaning in life of people with Long Covid: a qualitative study

Long Covid (LC) has been called the greatest mass-disabling event in human history. For patients, LC not only has implications for quality of life but also for meaning in life: how one's life and the world are understood and what is seen as valuable in one's life. This qualitative empirical study used a Constructivist Grounded Theory approach to investigate the meaning in life of people struggling with LC through ten patient interviews. This study shows that patients lose their prior understanding of life and come to a changed meaning in life, in part due to the experienced (social) isolation and loss of (both physical and cognitive) abilities caused by LC. Moreover, patients struggled with acceptance, uncertainty, and the inherent incomprehensibility and uncontrollability that living with LC entails, though this simultaneously co-existed with hope, optimism and acceptance. Additionally, dimensions of meaning intersect; a patient having some understanding of their illness (dimension of meaning: comprehension) required an understanding Other (dimension of meaning: connection). Emerging from lockdown brought the challenge and isolation of adjusting to chronic illness in society as usual (albeit divided about COVID-19 measures). This study thus offers novel insights regarding changed, present, and sought meaning in life for LC patients.

Patients' lived body experiences in the intensive care unit and beyond - a meta-ethnographic synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Physical therapists supporting patients in intensive care unit (ICU) rehabilitation can improve their clinical practice with insight in patients' lived body experiences.

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight in patients' lived body experiences during ICU stay and in recovery from critical illness.

METHODS

Through a comprehensive systematic literature search, 45 empirical phenomenological studies were identified. Patients' lived body experiences were extracted from these studies and synthesized following the seven-phase interpretative approach as described by Noblit and Hare.

RESULTS

Three lines of argument were illuminated: 1) "recovery from critical illness starts from a situation in which patients experience the lived body as unable;" 2) "patients experience progress in recovery from critical illness when the lived body is empowered;" and 3) "recovery from critical illness results in a lived body changed for life." Eleven third-order constructs were formulated as different kinds of bodies: 1) "an intolerable body;" 2) "an alienated body;" 3) "a powerless body;" 4) "a dependent body;" 5) "a restricted body;" 6) "a muted body;" 7) "a touched body;" 8) "a transforming body;" 9) "a re-discovering body;" 10) "an unhomelike body;" and 11) "a remembering body."

CONCLUSION

Patients' lived body experiences during ICU stay and in recovery from critical illness have richly been described in phenomenological studies and were synthesized in this meta-ethnography.

"No one told me how this could be pleasurable" A Qualitative Focus Group Study into Experiences and Needs of Transgender People in Addressing Sexuality in the Context of Gender-Affirming Medical Care in The Netherlands

Various studies show that transgender people may experience diverse challenges to attaining sexual well-being. Receiving gender-affirming medical care (GAMC) may influence one's sexual experiences, but there is little insight into the way sexuality is addressed in GAMC. We conducted a qualitative focus group study among transgender individuals on their experiences and needs related to the way sexuality is addressed in the GAMC context. We included 28 participants (aged 21-60) who were assigned to six groups based on their GAMC trajectories and treatment goals. Each group convened twice for two hours (12 focus groups in total). We analyzed the data using reflexive thematic analysis and identified three main themes. Regarding sexuality in GAMC, participants articulated the need for 1) personalized and balanced information, 2) insight into the experiences of others, and 3) the opportunity for support and guidance concerning sexuality by a healthcare provider. This study highlights the necessity to improve information provision and guidance to promote sexual well-being of people receiving GAMC. Such information ought to transcend cis- and heteronormative sexual assumptions and needs to be tailored to an individual's experiences. Finally, GAMC organizations and their healthcare providers should foster an environment where questions and concerns related to sexuality can be discussed.

Charting Diagnostic Safety: Exploring Patient-Provider Discordance in Medical Record Documentation

BACKGROUND

The 21st Century Cures Act enables patients to access their medical records, thus providing a unique opportunity to engage patients in their diagnostic journey.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the concordance between patients' self-reported diagnostic concerns and clinician-interpreted information in their electronic health records.

DESIGN

We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of a cohort of 467 patients who completed a structured data collection instrument (the Safer Dx Patient) to identify diagnostic concerns while reviewing their clinician's notes. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses on both the tools and the case summaries. Two clinical chart reviewers, blinded to patient-reported diagnostic concerns, independently conducted chart reviews using a different structured instrument (the Revised Safer Dx Instrument) to identify diagnostic concerns and generate case summaries. The primary outcome variable was chart review-identified diagnostic concerns. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was concordant with patient-reported diagnostic concerns.

SETTING

Geisinger, a large integrated healthcare organization in rural and semi-urban Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Cohort of adult patients actively using patient portals and identified as "at-risk" for diagnostic concerns using an electronic trigger algorithm based on unexpected visit patterns in a primary care setting.

RESULTS

In 467 cohort patients, chart review identified 31 (6.4%) diagnostic concerns, of which only 11 (21.5%) overlapped with 51 patient-reported diagnostic concerns. Content analysis revealed several areas of discordant understanding of the diagnostic process between clinicians and patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that clinician-identified diagnostic concerns were associated with patients who self-reported "I feel I was incorrectly diagnosed during my visit" (odds ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.3, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients and clinicians appear to have certain differences in their mental models of what is considered a diagnostic concern. Efforts to integrate patient perspectives and experiences with the diagnostic process can lead to better measurement of diagnostic safety.

'My cousin said to me . . .' Patients' use of third-party references to facilitate shared decision-making during naturally occurring primary care consultations

In this paper, we explore the ways in which patients invoke third parties to gain decision-making influence in clinical consultations. The patients' role in decision-making processes is often overlooked, and this interactional practice has rarely been systematically studied. Through a contextual narrative exploration of 42 naturally occurring consultations between patients (aged 22-84) and general practitioners (GPs) in England, we seek to fill this gap. By exploring how and why patients invoke third parties during discussions about medical treatments, who they refer to, what kind of knowledge their referents possess, and how GPs respond, our main aim is to capture the functions and implications of this interactional practice in relation to decision-making processes. Patients refer to third parties during decision-making processes in most of the consultations, usually to argue for and against certain treatment options, and the GPs recognise these utterances as pro-and-contra arguments. This enables patients to counter the GPs' professional knowledge through various knowledge-sources and encourage the GPs to target their specific concerns. By attributing arguments to third parties, patients claim decision-making influence without threatening the GPs' authority and expertise, which their disadvantaged epistemic position demands. Thereby, patients become able to negotiate their role and their epistemic position, to influence the agenda-setting, and to take part in the decision-making process, without being directly confrontational. Invoking third parties is a non-confrontational way of proposing and opposing treatment options that might facilitate successful patient participation in decision-making processes, and so limit the risk of patients being wronged in their capacity as knowers.

A critical and systematic literature review of epistemic justice applied to healthcare: recommendations for a patient partnership approach

Invalidation from healthcare practitioners is an experience shared by many patients, especially those marginalized or living with contested conditions (e.g., chronic pain, fibromyalgia, etc.). Invalidation can include not taking someone's testimony seriously, imposing one's thoughts, discrediting someone's emotions, or not perceiving someone's testimony as equal and competent. Epistemic injustices, that is, the disqualification of a person as a knower, are a form of invalidation. Epistemic injustices have been used as a theoretical framework to understand invalidation that occurs in the patient-healthcare provider relationship. However, to date, the different recommendations to achieve epistemic justice have not been listed, analyzed, nor compared yet. This paper aims at better understanding the state of the literature and to critically review possible avenues to achieve epistemic justice in healthcare. A systematic and critical review of the existing literature on epistemic justice was conducted. The search in four databases identified 629 articles, from which 35 were included in the review. Strategies to promote epistemic justice that can be applied to healthcare are mapped in the literature and sorted in six different approaches to epistemic justice, including virtuous, structural, narrative, cognitive, and partnership approaches, as well as resistance strategies. These strategies are critically appraised. A patient partnership approach based on the Montreal Model, implemented at all levels of healthcare systems, seems promising to promote epistemic justice in healthcare.

Shifting paradigms: A collective and structural strategy for addressing healthcare inequity

Healthcare inequity is a persistent systemic problem, yet many solutions have historically focused on "debiasing" individuals. Individualistic strategies fit within a competency-based medical education and assessment paradigm, whereby professional values of social accountability, patient safety, and healthcare equity are linked to an individual clinician's competence. Unfortunately, efforts to realise the conceptual linkages between medical education curricula and goals to improve healthcare equity fail to address the institutional values, policies, and practices that enable structural racism. In this article, we explore alternative approaches that target collective and structural causes of health inequity. We first describe the structural basis of healthcare inequity by identifying the ways in which institutional culture, power and privilege erode patient-centred care and contribute to epistemic injustice. We then outline some reasons that stereotypes, which are a culturally supported foundation for discrimination, bias and racism in healthcare, cannot be modified effectively through individualistic strategies or education curricula. Finally, we propose a model that centres shared values for leadership by individuals and institutions with consistency in goal setting, knowledge translation, and talent development. Figure 1 summarises the key recommendations. We have provided cases to supplement this work and facilitate discussion about the model's application to practice.

"I'm not getting paid to give you a TED talk on how my trans body works". Experiences of hysterectomy gender affirming surgery: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences of care surrounding hysterectomy as part of gender affirming surgery.

METHODS

An in-depth reflexive thematic analysis from accounts by 10 out of 12 people was undertaken. Experiences were then mapped to the surgery journey as a template for developing system responsiveness.

RESULTS

No one person's experience of the procedure was affirmed across the entire surgery journey. Transgender health literacy was central to inclusive practice as it mediated bodily autonomy being upheld. The physical care environment influenced the experience, for example, the waiting room was marginalizing (intimidating), with a gendered clinic name and toilets. Some participants took a female support person/partner so that "people looking would assume that I was there supporting her, not the other way around." Communication misalignments were evident around information provided/understood about fertility and ovarian preservation. Participants were also placed in the position of both receiving care and providing education: "I also shouldn't have to be going in there for treatment, and then being expected to educate the medical professional that's meant to be helping me… I'm not getting paid to give you a TED talk on how my trans body works." The experiences mapped across the surgery journey highlighted multiple levels of service provision development needed to foster inclusive practice, for example, from workforce education to healthcare policy.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare for transgender people can be unsafe and inequitable. Increasing transgender health responsiveness across the surgery journey will facilitate better alignments in communication and uphold bodily autonomy, leading to safer and inclusive practice.

Therapist's positive evaluation of children with hearing impairment: A conversation analysis perspective

In speech-language therapy, the evaluation of children with atypical speech embodies the practical expertise of the therapist and the therapeutic goal of facilitating rehabilitation by guiding these children toward more typical speech behaviors. This study aims to provide an interactional explanation of how positive evaluations given by speech therapists are sequentially formatted, constructed, and oriented in therapy practice and what interactional consequences they have on the interpretation and learning of children with hearing impairment. Adopting conversation analysis as a methodology, this empirical study delves into naturally occurring conversations between speech therapists and children with hearing impairment within the context of Chinese speech-language therapy, focusing specifically on instances of positive evaluations in the third-turn position. The analysis reveals a prevalent occurrence of positive evaluations during therapeutic interactions, showcasing a diverse range of formats employed, spanning from explicit to implicit expressions. A fine-grained conversation analysis demonstrates the delicate and intricate nature of therapists' positive evaluations, in terms of their indexicality (the function of being referential), and sensitivity to local contingencies. Furthermore, these positive evaluations serve as a critical site for displaying the epistemic asymmetry and its negotiation in and through therapist-client interactions. By providing an empirical demonstration of the interactional skill involved in speech-language therapy and advocating for evaluations characterized by clear indexicality and recipient-orientedness, this study contributes to enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of rehabilitation practices while shedding new light on the atypical interactions involving people with communicative impairments.

Will psychology ever 'join hands' with disability studies? Opportunities and challenges in working towards structurally competent and disability-affirmative psychotherapy for energy limiting conditions

Despite sustained efforts among critically informed scholars to integrate thinking from disability studies into psychology, the psy disciplines continue to largely neglect the lived experience of disabled people and overlook disability as a form of social inequity and valued culture. In this article, I make a renewed case for integrating thinking from disability studies into psy, in particular within the psychotherapy professions and in the case of 'energy limiting conditions', a grass-roots concept that includes clinically and socially marginalised chronic illness such as Long COVID. Drawing on my experience as a disabled practitioner, and situating this within extant literature on disability and psy, I take an autoethnographic approach to exploring opportunities and challenges in bridging the interdisciplinary divide. I argue that unacknowledged institutional ableism within psy reproduces and is reinforced by physical and attitudinal barriers for disabled practitioners and service users, engendering under-representation of disability in psychotherapy professions and lacunae in disability-affirmative conceptual resources. Additionally, I propose that hermeneutical lacunae are bolstered by documented defensive clinical practices pertaining to disability. After discussing a wealth of opportunities for integration offered by disability studies, and noting the institutional failure within psy to embrace disability-related demographic and epistemic diversity, I question whether ongoing epistemic and social exclusions within the psy disciplines constitute a case of 'willful epistemic ableism'. Drawing on theorising vis-à-vis epistemic injustice and epistemologies of ignorance, I signal a form of systematic, actively maintained and structurally incentivised (motivated) non-knowing that results in collective failure among dominant groups to recognise established hermeneutical resources of the disabled community and allies. I conclude with suggestions of how this form of epistemic injustice might be mitigated.

Sense-making and hermeneutical injustice following a psychiatric diagnosis

When one is seriously ill, the diagnosis given can generate questions about what it means and how to make sense of it. This is particularly the case for psychiatric diagnoses which can convey a biomedical narrative of the sufferer's condition. Making sense of one's diagnosis in such cases can involve changing one's self-narrative in such a way as to incorporate the belief that one has developed a disease with an unknown cause. To demonstrate the importance of self-narratives, I outline key themes in narrative theory which have been explored in various ways by philosophers and some psychologists. These theorists emphasise the importance of self-narratives in creating meaning for their authors. The biomedical narrative associated with a psychiatric diagnosis may conflict with the recipient's previous self-narratives. This may reduce the recipient's sense of self-efficacy and induce feelings of hopelessness about recovery. I argue that those receiving a psychiatric diagnosis may consequently be vulnerable to epistemic injustice. In particular, this includes hermeneutical injustice, where individuals lack the ability to understand or articulate their experiences in ways that make sense to them, due to their hermeneutical resources being marginalised by the dominant narrative in a medicalized environment. I consider two possible objections to my claim and offer answers to these.

The conceptual injustice of the brain death standard

Family disputes over the diagnosis of brain death have caused much controversy in the bioethics literature over the conceptual validity of the brain death standard. Given the tenuous status of brain death as death, it is pragmatically fruitful to reframe intractable debates about the metaphysical nature of brain death as metalinguistic disputes about its conceptual deployment. This new framework leaves the metaphysical debate open and brings into focus the social functions that are served by deploying the concept of brain death. In doing so, it highlights the epistemic injustice of medicolegal authorities that force people to uniformly accept brain death as a diagnosis of death based on normative considerations of institutional interests, such as saving hospital resources and organ supplies, rather than empirical evidence of brain death as death, which is insufficient at best and nonexistent at worst. In light of this injustice, I propose the rejection of the uniform standard of brain death in favor of a choice-based system that respects families' individualized views of death.

Physician Perspectives on Responding to Clinician-Perpetuated Interpersonal Racism Against Black Patients with Serious Illness

BACKGROUND

Racism negatively affects clinical outcomes in Black patients, but uncertainty remains among physicians regarding how to address interpersonal anti-Black racism incidences involving them to facilitate racial healing and promote accountability.

OBJECTIVE

Elicit physician perspectives on addressing concerns from Black patients about interpersonal racism involving them or their team.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one physician subspecialists at an urban academic medical center.

APPROACH

We conducted one-on-one semi-structured interviews to help inform the development of a clinician-facing component of a program to address the distress of racism experienced by Black patients with serious illness. We asked clinicians to describe experiences discussing racism with patients and identify additional resources to support these conversations.

MAIN MEASURES

Physician perspectives, including barriers and facilitators, to promote racial healing and clinician accountability when discussing clinician-perpetuated interpersonal racism with Black patients.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 21 participating physicians, 67% were women with a mean age of 44.2 years and mean of 10.8 years of experience as an attending physician. Four identified as Asian, three identified as Black, and 14 identified as White. Participants largely felt unprepared to discuss racism with their patients, especially if the harm was caused by them or their team. Participants felt patients should be given tools to discuss concerns about racism with their clinicians, but worried about adding additional burdens to Black patients to call out racism. Participants believed programs and processes with both patient- and clinicians-facing components had the potential to empower patients while providing resources and tools for clinicians to engage in these highly sensitive discussions without perpetuating more harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing and improving communication about interpersonal racism in clinical settings are challenging. Dual-facing programs involving patients and clinicians may help provide additional resources to address experiences of interpersonal racism and hold clinicians accountable.

Using curiosity to render the invisible, visible

Virtues commonly associated with physicians and other healthcare professionals include empathy, respect, kindness, compassion, trustworthiness, and many more. Building upon the work of Bortolloti, Murphy-Hollies, and others, I suggest that curiosity as a virtue has an integral role to play in healthcare, namely, in helping to make those who are invisible, visible. Practicing the virtue of curiosity enables one to engage with and explore the experiences of patients and contributes toward building a physician-patient relationship of trust. As the perspectives and experiences of patients can be too often dismissed or lost within medical settings, curiosity can allow physicians to deeply know their patients, and thus provide better care. However, caution must be exercised so as to not to venture into inappropriate curiosity, where questions are asked for improper reasons or to help satisfy the personal interest of physicians. Finally, I sketch out two cases-on chronic pain and on vaccine hesitancy-to illustrate where curiosity can play a valuable role.

That was just your life: rethinking dementia for advance directives

Over the past decades, literature in dementia ethics has extensively looked at moral questions revolving around the care of older people living with dementia. Particularly prevalent are autonomy-related concerns regarding topics such as advance directives. In this paper, we argue that these discussions are crucially premised on how dementia is understood and represented. Despite the multiplicity of dementia presentations in people, the dominant discourse predominantly frames dementia as 'monstrous,' an 'enemy,' a destructive experience in need of eradication. We contend that such a monolithic approach, from a moral standpoint, is problematic in several respects. Indeed, framing heavily influences the way dementia is understood and experienced, leading to stigmatization, bias, and distress. Not only does it influence decisions and discussions on advance directives, but we argue that this flawed understanding of dementia is rooted in and contributes to epistemic harm. In the first section, we introduce the ethics of advance directives. More specifically, we introduce the view developed by Dworkin who has largely influenced the debate by making the case for advance directives by grounding them in the principles of autonomy and beneficence. In the second section, we show how dementia is still mostly framed monolithically as a 'destructive experience.' We then show that this framing is problematic because it oversteps the different pathologies dementia implies, which leads to an inaccurate representation of the condition. In the third section, we present possible alternative framings: dementia as normal aging, a person-centered care framework, and an embodied view. In the fourth section, drawing on recent developments in the epistemic injustice literature, we explore how maintaining and utilizing flawed understandings of dementia may lead to distinct moral-epistemic harms for those living with dementia and inform ongoing discussions on advance directives. Finally, in the concluding section, we return to the case of advance directives and what the implications of rethinking dementia are.

Differences of sex development and surgical decisions: focus group interviews with health care professionals in Norway

Background

Differences of Sex Development (DSD) are congenital conditions where the chromosomal, gonadal and anatomical sex characteristics do not strictly belong to male or female categories, or that belong to both at the same time. Surgical interventions for individuals with DSD remain controversial, among affected individuals, caregivers, and health-care providers. A lack of evidence in support of, for deferring, or for avoiding surgery complicates the decision-making process. This study explores Norwegian health-care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on decision-making in DSD-related surgeries and the dilemmas they are facing in this process.

Methods

Focus group interviews with 14 HCPs integrated into or collaborating with multidisciplinary DSD teams were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Two overarching dilemmas shed light on the intricate considerations and challenges that HCPs encounter when guiding affected individuals and caregivers through surgical decision-making processes in the context of DSD. The first theme describes how shared decision-making was found to be influenced by fear of stigma and balancing the interplay between concepts of normality, personal experiences and external expectations when navigating the child's and caregivers' needs. The second theme illuminated dilemmas due to a lack of evidence-based practice. The core concepts within each theme were the dilemmas health-care professionals face during consultations with caregivers and affected individuals.

Conclusion

HCPs were aware of the controversies with DSD-related surgeries. However, they struggled to reconcile knowledge with parents' wishes for surgery and faced dilemmas making decisions in the best interests of the child. This study draws attention to the benefits of increased knowledge on the consequences of performing or withholding surgery as well as incorporating tools enabling shared decision-making between HCPs and affected individuals/caregivers.

Living with mesothelioma: a systematic review of mental health and well-being impacts and interventions for patients and their informal carers

OBJECTIVES

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer predominantly affecting the lung and abdominal linings. It can have a unique impact on mental health and well-being (MHWB) due to its incurability, poor prognosis and asbestos-exposure causation. This review's aims were to identify/synthesise international evidence on mesothelioma's MHWB impacts; explore MHWB interventions used by patients and carers; and identify evidence of their effectiveness.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Databases, searched March 2022 and March 2024, were MEDLINE; CINAHL; PsycINFO; Cochrane Library; ASSIA.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included study designs focusing on psychological impacts of living with mesothelioma and MHWB interventions used by patients and informal carers, published in English since January 2002.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A team of reviewers screened included studies using standardised methods. Quality was assessed using validated tools: Mixed-Methods Appraisal tool for primary research and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 20 qualitative, 16 quantitative, nine reviews, two mixed-methods, one combined systematic review/qualitative study. UK studies predominated. Many MHWB impacts were reported, including traumatic stress, depression, anxiety and guilt. These were influenced by mesothelioma's causation, communication issues and carer-patient relational interactions. Participants used wide-ranging MHWB interventions, including religious/spiritual practice; talking to mental-health professionals; meaning-making. Some strategies were presented as unhelpful, for example, denial. Participants reported lack of access to support.

CONCLUSIONS

Most qualitative studies were rated high quality. The quality of the quantitative studies and reviews varied. The sparse literature regarding MHWB in mesothelioma means more research is needed into impacts on patients and carers, including trauma. To enable access to evidence-based support, research is recommended concerning MHWB interventions' effectiveness in mesothelioma.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022302187.

Opportunities for incorporating intersectionality into biomedical informatics

Many approaches in biomedical informatics (BMI) rely on the ability to define, gather, and manipulate biomedical data to support health through a cyclical research-practice lifecycle. Researchers within this field are often fortunate to work closely with healthcare and public health systems to influence data generation and capture and have access to a vast amount of biomedical data. Many informaticists also have the expertise to engage with stakeholders, develop new methods and applications, and influence policy. However, research and policy that explicitly seeks to address the systemic drivers of health would more effectively support health. Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that can facilitate such research. It holds that individual human experiences reflect larger socio-structural level systems of privilege and oppression, and cannot be truly understood if these systems are examined in isolation. Intersectionality explicitly accounts for the interrelated nature of systems of privilege and oppression, providing a lens through which to examine and challenge inequities. In this paper, we propose intersectionality as an intervention into how we conduct BMI research. We begin by discussing intersectionality's history and core principles as they apply to BMI. We then elaborate on the potential for intersectionality to stimulate BMI research. Specifically, we posit that our efforts in BMI to improve health should address intersectionality's five key considerations: (1) systems of privilege and oppression that shape health; (2) the interrelated nature of upstream health drivers; (3) the nuances of health outcomes within groups; (4) the problematic and power-laden nature of categories that we assign to people in research and in society; and (5) research to inform and support social change.

Intersectionality as a tool for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare

Bioethics increasingly recognizes the impact of discriminatory practices based on social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation or ability on clinical practice. Accordingly, major bioethics associations have stressed that identifying and countering structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations is a professional obligation of clinical ethics consultants. Yet, it is still unclear how clinical ethics consultants can fulfill this obligation. More specifically, clinical ethics needs both theoretical tools to analyze and practical strategies to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations. Intersectionality, a concept developed in Black feminist scholarship, is increasingly considered in bioethical theory. It stresses how social structures and practices determine social positions of privilege and disadvantage in multiple, mutually co-constitutive systems of oppression. This article aims to investigate how intersectionality can contribute to addressing structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations with a particular focus on mental healthcare. To this end, we critically review existing approaches for clinical ethics consultants to address structural racism in clinical ethics consultations and extend them by intersectional considerations. We argue that intersectionality is a suitable tool to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations and show that it can be practically implemented in two complementary ways: 1) as an analytic approach and 2) as a critical practice.

Anti-Black Medical Gaslighting in Healthcare: Experiences of Black Women in Canada

BACKGROUND

Stereotype about Black people contribute to nurses and healthcare providers gaslighting and dismissing of their health concerns. Despite the popularity of the term medical gaslighting in mainstream literature, few studies have explored the experiences of Black women during pregnancy and childbirth.

PURPOSE

This paper aims to provide an in-depth insight into Black women's experiences of anti-Black medical gaslighting when accessing care during pregnancy and childbirth.

METHODS

Utilizing qualitative methods, we conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with Black women in the Greater Toronto Area. We used thematic analysis to ground the data analysis and to generate insight into Black women's experiences.

RESULTS

Three overarching themes: 1) Not Being Understood: Privileging of Medical Knowledge Contributing to the Downplaying of Health Concerns, 2) Not Being Believed: Stereotypes Contributing to Dismissive Healthcare Encounters and 3) Listen to Us: Turning off the Cycle of Medical Gaslighting. These themes highlight ways anti-Black medical gaslighting manifests in Black women's healthcare encounters to create differential access to treatment and care.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-Black medical gaslighting contributes to differential access to treatment and care. Improving equitable access to treatment and care must involve addressing structural and epistemic biases in healthcare and fostering a culture of listening to humanize the experience of illness.

Barriers to healthcare access and experiences of stigma: Findings from a coproduced Long Covid case-finding study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid.

METHODS

An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration.

FINDINGS

Twenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources.

CONCLUSION

We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

"That's just Future Medicine" - a qualitative study on users' experiences of symptom checker apps

BACKGROUND

Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are mobile or online applications for lay people that usually have two main functions: symptom analysis and recommendations. SCAs ask users questions about their symptoms via a chatbot, give a list with possible causes, and provide a recommendation, such as seeing a physician. However, it is unclear whether the actual performance of a SCA corresponds to the users' experiences. This qualitative study investigates the subjective perspectives of SCA users to close the empirical gap identified in the literature and answers the following main research question: How do individuals (healthy users and patients) experience the usage of SCA, including their attitudes, expectations, motivations, and concerns regarding their SCA use?

METHODS

A qualitative interview study was chosen to clarify the relatively unknown experience of SCA use. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with SCA users were carried out by two researchers in tandem via video call. Qualitative content analysis was selected as methodology for the data analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen interviews with SCA users were conducted and seven main categories identified: (1) Attitudes towards findings and recommendations, (2) Communication, (3) Contact with physicians, (4) Expectations (prior to use), (5) Motivations, (6) Risks, and (7) SCA-use for others.

CONCLUSIONS

The aspects identified in the analysis emphasise the specific perspective of SCA users and, at the same time, the immense scope of different experiences. Moreover, the study reveals ethical issues, such as relational aspects, that are often overlooked in debates on mHealth. Both empirical and ethical research is more needed, as the awareness of the subjective experience of those affected is an essential component in the responsible development and implementation of health apps such as SCA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00022465. 07/08/2020.

Understanding gender inequity in brain health outcomes: missed stroke as a case study for intersectionality

Recent attention into sex and gender-based inequities surrounding outcomes for brain health disorders has generated momentum toward addressing what has been called the "brain health gap." Importantly though, "women" are not uniform demographic group. In this perspective piece, we discuss misdiagnosis in stroke as an aspect of access and quality of care within brain health. Drawing on narrative data from a mixed methods study of young stroke survivors we suggest that while missed stroke isn't only an issue of gender, if we are going to understand gender-based gaps in access and navigation through stroke care, we have to understand how intersections of gender with age, ethnoracial identity, nationality, language, (dis)ability, and other aspects of social identity come together to create affordances as well as biases that contribute to stroke outcomes.

The value of experts by experience in social domain supervision in the Netherlands: results from a 'mystery guests' project

BACKGROUND

User involvement and participation in the supervision of the quality of care is an important topic for many healthcare inspectorates. It offers regulators an additional view on quality, increases the legitimacy and accountability of the inspectorate, empowers users and enhancing the public's trust in the inspectorate. To assess the accessibility of the local governmental social domain services the Joint Inspectorate Social Domain in the Netherlands worked together with people with intellectual disabilities performing as 'mystery guests' in an innovative project. This paper describes the findings of the evaluation of this project.

METHODS

People with intellectual disabilities living at home on their own may need some help with daily activities such as administrative tasks, raising children, household tasks, managing debts or finding work. In the Netherlands they have to arrange this help at their municipality. The goal of this project was to find out how easily people with intellectual disabilities could get help from their municipality. The participants were equal partners with the JISD inspectors from the beginning: in constructing an inspection framework, in acting as mystery guest with a fictive support request, reported back the results by storytelling.

RESULTS

The evaluation of the project showed that the JISD succeeded in their key aspect of the project: the goal to involve people with intellectual disabilities in a leading role from the beginning until the end. Their perspectives and preferences were the starting point of supervision. Pain points in accessibility became clear straight away and gave important insights for both inspectors as municipality professionals. Municipalities started to improve their services and evaluated the improvements with the clients. Furthermore, the impact on the participants themselves was also huge: they felt being taken seriously, valued and empowered.

CONCLUSION

Involving people with intellectual disabilities as participants in all phases of supervision processes contributes to more relevant and useful outcomes, creates mutual understanding of perspectives, as affirmed by both municipalities and inspectors, and creates empowerment of the participants. Furthermore, it fits perfectly within the United Nation Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the current development of 'value driven regulation'.

Open AI meets open notes: surveillance capitalism, patient privacy and online record access

Patient online record access (ORA) is spreading worldwide, and in some countries, including Sweden, and the USA, access is advanced with patients obtaining rapid access to their full records. In the UK context, from 31 October 2023 as part of the new NHS England general practitioner (GP) contract it will be mandatory for GPs to offer ORA to patients aged 16 and older. Patients report many benefits from reading their clinical records including feeling more empowered, better understanding and remembering their treatment plan, and greater awareness about medications including possible adverse effects. However, a variety of indirect evidence suggests these benefits are unlikely to accrue without supplementation from internet-based resources. Using such routes to augment interpretation of the data and notes housed in electronic health records, however, comes with trade-offs in terms of exposing sensitive patient information to internet corporations. Furthermore, increased work burdens on clinicians, including the unique demands of ORA, combined with the easy availability and capability of a new generation of large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots, create a perfect collision course for exposing sensitive patient information to private tech companies. This paper surveys how ORA intersects with internet associated privacy risks and offers a variety of multilevel suggestions for how these risks might be better mitigated.

"Just" a painful period: A philosophical perspective review of the dismissal of menstrual pain

Science and society typically respond to dysmenorrhea-or painful menstrual cramps-as a normal, natural, and inevitable part of menstruation. This normalization has greatly contributed to the systemic dismissal of painful menstrual cramps. Stigma, secrecy, and the expectation to "cope" fuel the normalization of menstrual pain. In this article, I argue that the normalization of menstrual pain restricts the ability to share an excruciating menstrual pain in a way that would otherwise elicit alarm or concern. This can cause clinicians to downgrade menstrual pain, and even menstruating persons to downgrade their own pain. I refer to the dismissal of menstrual pain as an example of a pain-related motivational deficit. A pain-related motivational deficit describes instances in which an utterance fails to motivate due to societal practices and ideas that make it difficult to recognize the import of the embodied experience being shared.

First-person disavowals of digital phenotyping and epistemic injustice in psychiatry

Digital phenotyping will potentially enable earlier detection and prediction of mental illness by monitoring human interaction with and through digital devices. Notwithstanding its promises, it is certain that a person's digital phenotype will at times be at odds with their first-person testimony of their psychological states. In this paper, we argue that there are features of digital phenotyping in the context of psychiatry which have the potential to exacerbate the tendency to dismiss patients' testimony and treatment preferences, which can be instances of epistemic injustice. We first explain what epistemic injustice is, and why it is argued to be an extensive problem in health and disability settings. We then explain why epistemic injustice is more likely to apply with even greater force in psychiatric contexts, and especially where digital phenotyping may be involved. Finally, we offer some tentative suggestions of how epistemic injustice can be minimised in digital psychiatry.

Epistemic problems with mental health legislation in the doctor-patient relationship

Mental health legislation that requires patients to accept 'care' has come under increasing scrutiny, prompted primarily by a human rights ethic. Epistemic issues in mental health have received some attention, however, less attention has been paid to the possible epistemic problems of mental health legislation existing. In this manuscript, we examine the epistemic problems that arise from the presence of such legislation, both for patients without a prior experience of being detained under such legislation and for those with this experience. We also examine how the doctor is legally obligated to compound the epistemic problems by the knowledge they prioritise and the failure to generate new knowledge. Specifically, we describe the problems of testimonial epistemic injustice, epistemic silencing, and epistemic smothering, and address the possible justification provided by epistemic paternalism. We suggest that there is no reasonable epistemic justification for mental health legislation that creates an environment that fundamentally unbalances the doctor-patient relationship. Significant positive reasons to counterbalance this are needed to justify the continuation of such legislation.

Collaborating With Community Partners to Address Population Health in an Online Advanced Nursing Practice Course

BACKGROUND

Engaging in effective community partnerships is a core competency for advanced nursing practice.

PURPOSE

To describe a semester-long population health project that involved collaboration with a community partner in an online and asynchronous advanced nursing practice course and to evaluate students' perceptions of their community partner collaboration.

METHODS

At the beginning of the course, students selected health topics and community partners. Perceptions of the collaboration were evaluated in a survey. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

Approximately 59% of the students found the community partnership was very valuable. Barriers for working with community partners included reluctancy, feeling like a burden, and challenges with scheduling. Facilitators for working with community partners included receiving support on the project, gaining new perspectives, and the collaborative relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Community partnership assignments on population health projects can support students in obtaining skills on effective community partnerships while they are in their education programs.

Relational care and epistemic injustice

The philosophical underpinnings of primary care have been examined from several perspectives in recent years. In two previous articles, we have argued that a relational view of autonomy is better matched to the primary care setting than others, and that view is mainly formed from the descriptors of its practice. Here we develop that analysis further, linking it to other relevant theory: the experience of human suffering and epistemic injustice. We argue that relational care is fundamental to ameliorating epistemic injustice and that relationships are integral to ethical practice, rather than being distinct. We propose that personalised care as described in the NHS Long Term Plan is not possible without addressing epistemic injustice and therefore without reconsidering our existing normative ethical frameworks.

Epistemic injustice in the therapeutic relationship in psychiatry

The notion of epistemic injustice was first applied to cases of discrimination against women and people of color but has since come to refer to wider issues related to social justice. This paper applies the concept of epistemic injustice to problems in the therapeutic relationship between psychiatrists and psychiatric patients. To this end, it is necessary to acknowledge psychiatrists as professionals with expertise in treating mental disorders, which impair the patient's rationality, sometimes leading to false beliefs, such as delusions. This paper classifies the characteristic features of the therapeutic relationship in psychiatry into three stages: those of a professional-client relationship, those of a doctor-patient relationship, and those of a psychiatrist-psychiatric patient relationship. Epistemic injustice is prevalent in psychiatric care owing to prejudice against patients with mental disorders. However, it is also predisposed by the roles that psychiatrists play in relation to psychiatric patients. This paper suggests some ameliorative measures based on the analysis.

Emotion, ethics, epistemology: What can shame 'do' in medical education?

BACKGROUND

Recent empirical studies have described and theorized a culture of shame within medical education in the Anglo-American context (Bynum). Shame is universal and highly social human emotion characterized by a sense of feeling objectified and judged negatively, in contrast to one's own self-concept. Shame has both an embodied and a relational dimension. Shame is considered especially relevant in healthcare settings (Dolezal and Lyons), and the tenets of patient care within the medical profession include respecting the dignity and upholding the safety of patients. However, shame is frequently deployed as a teaching tool within medical training.

METHOD

Here I ask, what can shame do in medical education (Ahmed)? What epistemic and relational conditions does it construct? I draw from philosophical voices in higher education to illuminate how shaming practices in medical education can undermine dignity safety (Callan), preclude inclusivity, and in the context of the hierarchical and marginalizing medical system, propagate epistemic injustice (Fricker).

DISCUSSION

This argument shows how shame in education can be both phenomenologically and normatively problematic and may act differently upon students who experience marginalization and those who are majoritized. I further suggest that a medical education system which upholds the epistemological and relational frameworks of power, shame, and epistemic injustice, underscores those frameworks in the medical system at large, disserving individual patients who are already at risk of suffering epistemic injustice (Carel), and society at large.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of shame in medical education focuses on the highly relational and interpersonal elements of learning to live and work in the medical system, highlighting the need for respect, trust, and resistance to reorient the relational learning environment toward individual and systemic forms of justice.

Claims in the clinic: A qualitative group interview study on healthcare communication about unestablished side effects of the copper IUD

BACKGROUND

Lay online communication about health-related issues has in recent years largely been associated with the spread of misinformation and decreased trust in healthcare. Such communication has included claims about systemic side effects of the copper IUD. In Sweden, a social media group centered on this issue now gathers around 8,700 members. This study aimed to use the case of reported yet unestablished side effects of the copper IUD to investigate experiences of and reasoning about healthcare encounters between caregivers and patients contesting established medical knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured, digital group interviews with members of the social media group (seven groups, n = 23) and with midwives and gynecologists (six groups, n = 15). We also gathered essays written by social media group members (n = 23). The material was analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

The participant accounts pointed towards tensions related to principles of evidence-based medicine, i.e., perceived insufficiency of research on the safety of the copper IUD and lack of clarity in routines for reporting and following up suspected side effects, and of patient-centered care, i.e., listening respectfully to patients. Tension between caregivers' obligation to adhere to evidence-based medicine while also providing patient-centered care was noted.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare providers' efforts to assess and address patient claims contesting established medical knowledge should include ensuring and communicating sufficient research, clarifying procedures for reporting suspected side effects, and improving person-centered care. This can increase the quality of care while contributing to the mitigation of distrust in healthcare and the spreading of health-related misinformation.

Mothers' Views on the Storage and Usage of Their Children's Biological Material Under the Danish Biobanking Model: A Narrative Approach Using Epistemic Injustice

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the knowledge and attitudes of mothers living in Denmark on the storage and usage of their children's biological material. The Danish Neonatal Screening Biobank contains blood from the Phenylketonuria-screening test. Legal, ethical, and moral concerns have been raised in several countries of how consent is obtained best in pediatric biobank governance. Research on knowledge and attitudes of Danish parents on the usage of their children's biological material is scarce.

METHODS

A coproduced study between a mother and 2 researchers. We analyzed 5 online focus group interviews using Ricoeur's hermeneutical narrative analysis.

RESULTS

Mothers have very little knowledge on the storage and usage of their children's biological material. They consider the Phenylketonuria-screening test to be part of a birth package, which leaves very little option of choice. They accept donating the material as a token of appreciation in an act of altruism toward the wider society but are only comfortable supporting Danish research.

CONCLUSIONS

An exploration of the communal narrative build in the interviews reveal an overall feeling of duty to help benefit society, an overwhelming trust toward the health system, and epistemic unjust storage information practices.

Epistemic Injustice and Nonmaleficence

Epistemic injustice has undergone a steady growth in the medical ethics literature throughout the last decade as many ethicists have found it to be a powerful tool for describing and assessing morally problematic situations in healthcare. However, surprisingly scarce attention has been devoted to how epistemic injustice relates to physicians' professional duties on a conceptual level. I argue that epistemic injustice, specifically testimonial, collides with physicians' duty of nonmaleficence and should thus be actively fought against in healthcare encounters on the ground of professional conduct. I do so by fleshing out how Fricker's conception of testimonial injustice conflicts with the duty of nonmaleficence as defined in Beauchamp and Childress on theoretical grounds. From there, I argue that testimonial injustice produces two distinct types of harm, epistemic and non-epistemic. Epistemic harms are harms inflicted by the physician to the patient qua knower, whereas non-epistemic harms are inflicted to the patient qua patient. This latter case holds serious clinical implications and represent a failure of the process of due care on the part of the physician. I illustrate this through examples taken from the literature on fibromyalgia syndrome and show how testimonial injustice causes wrongful harm to patients, making it maleficent practice. Finally, I conclude on why nonmaleficence as a principle will not be normatively enough to fully address the problem of epistemic injustice in healthcare but nevertheless may serve as a good starting point in attempting to do so.

Implying implausibility and undermining versus accepting peoples' experiences of suicidal ideation and self-harm in Emergency Department psychosocial assessments

Background

Patients seeking emergency care for self-harm and suicidality report varying experiences from being believed and taken seriously to not being believed and taken seriously. Epistemic injustice provides a conceptual framework to explore how peoples' experiences of self-harm and suicidality are believed or not. We use an empirical method -conversation analysis - to analyze epistemics in clinical communication, focusing on how knowledge is claimed, contested and negotiated. In courtroom, police and political interaction, conversation analysis has identified communication practices implying implausibility in a person's story to contest and recharacterize their accounts.

Aims

To investigate communication practices in Emergency Department (ED) biopsychosocial assessments that may (1) undermine, imply implausibility and recharacterize or (2) accept peoples' experiences of suicidal ideation and self-harm.

Methods

Using conversation analysis, we micro-analyzed verbal and non-verbal communication in five video-recorded biopsychosocial assessments with people presenting to the ED with self-harm or suicidal ideation, and conducted supplementary analysis of participants' medical records and post-visit interviews. We present three cases where experiences were not accepted and undermined/recharacterized and two cases where experiences were accepted and validated.

Results

When peoples' experiences of suicidality and self-harm were not accepted or were undermined, questioners: did not acknowledge or accept the person's account; asked questions that implied inconsistency or implausibility ("Didn't you tell your GP that you were coping okay?"); juxtaposed contrasting information to undermine the person's account ("You said you were coping okay before, and now you're saying you feel suicidal"); asked questions asserting that, e.g., asking for help implied they were not intending to end their life ("So when you called 111 what were you expecting them to do"); and resistinged or directly questioned the person's account. Multiple practices across the assessment built on each other to assert that the person was not suicidal, did not look or act like they were suicidal; that the person's decision to attend the ED was not justified; that an overdose was impulsive and not intended to end life; asking why the person didn't take a more harmful medication to overdose; that self-harming behaviors were not that serious and should be in the person's control. Alternative characterizations were used to justify decisions not to provide further support or referrals to specialist services. At times, these practices were also delivered when speaking over the patient. When peoples' experiences were accepted, practitioners acknowledged, accepted, validated suicidality/self-harm and introduced a shared understanding of experiences that patients found helpful. Non-verbal feedback such as nodding and eye contact was central in acceptance of patients' accounts.

Conclusion

These findings advance our understanding of how peoples' experiences of suicidality or self-harm are undermined or accepted in mental health encounters in the ED. They have important clinical implications: patients report that when their experiences are not accepted or undermined, this makes them more distressed, less hopeful about the future and discourages future help-seeking when in crisis. Conversely, acknowledging, accepting and validating suicidality/self-harm and introducing a new ways of understanding peoples' experiences may make people less suicidal and more hopeful, generates shared understanding and encourages future help-seeking.

Evidence, ethics and the promise of artificial intelligence in psychiatry

Researchers are studying how artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to better detect, prognosticate and subgroup diseases. The idea that AI might advance medicine's understanding of biological categories of psychiatric disorders, as well as provide better treatments, is appealing given the historical challenges with prediction, diagnosis and treatment in psychiatry. Given the power of AI to analyse vast amounts of information, some clinicians may feel obligated to align their clinical judgements with the outputs of the AI system. However, a potential epistemic privileging of AI in clinical judgements may lead to unintended consequences that could negatively affect patient treatment, well-being and rights. The implications are also relevant to precision medicine, digital twin technologies and predictive analytics generally. We propose that a commitment to epistemic humility can help promote judicious clinical decision-making at the interface of big data and AI in psychiatry.

Testimonial injustice in medical machine learning

Machine learning (ML) systems play an increasingly relevant role in medicine and healthcare. As their applications move ever closer to patient care and cure in clinical settings, ethical concerns about the responsibility of their use come to the fore. I analyse an aspect of responsible ML use that bears not only an ethical but also a significant epistemic dimension. I focus on ML systems' role in mediating patient-physician relations. I thereby consider how ML systems may silence patients' voices and relativise the credibility of their opinions, which undermines their overall credibility status without valid moral and epistemic justification. More specifically, I argue that withholding credibility due to how ML systems operate can be particularly harmful to patients and, apart from adverse outcomes, qualifies as a form of testimonial injustice. I make my case for testimonial injustice in medical ML by considering ML systems currently used in the USA to predict patients' risk of misusing opioids (automated Prediction Drug Monitoring Programmes, PDMPs for short). I argue that the locus of testimonial injustice in ML-mediated medical encounters is found in the fact that these systems are treated as markers of trustworthiness on which patients' credibility is assessed. I further show how ML-based PDMPs exacerbate and further propagate social inequalities at the expense of vulnerable social groups.

Applying an equity lens to hospital safety monitoring: a critical interpretive synthesis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Hospital safety monitoring systems are foundational to how adverse events are identified and addressed. They are well positioned to bring equity-related safety issues to the forefront for action. However, there is uncertainty about how they have been, and can be, used to achieve this goal. We will undertake a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to examine how equity is integrated into hospital safety monitoring systems.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This review will follow CIS principles. Our initial compass question is: How is equity integrated into safety monitoring systems? We will begin with a structured search strategy of hospital safety monitoring systems in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO for up to May 2023 to identify papers on safety monitoring systems generally and those linked to equity (eg, racism, social determinants of health). We will also review reference lists of selected papers, contact experts and draw on team expertise. For subsequent literature searching stages, we will use team expertise and expert contacts to purposively search the social science, humanities and health services research literature to support the development of a theoretical understanding of our topic. Following data extraction, we will use interpretive processes to develop themes and a critique of the literature. The above processes of question formulation, article search and selection, data extraction, and critique and synthesis will be iterative and interactive with the goal to develop a theoretical understanding of equity in hospital monitoring systems that will have practice-based implications.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval because we are reviewing published literature. We aim to publish findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present at conferences.

Patient-shared knowledge and information in clinical decision-making: an international survey of the perspectives and experiences of naturopathic practitioners

INTRODUCTION

Most knowledge translation models pay relatively little attention to patient-held knowledge and are largely based on the premise that researchers and clinicians hold all valuable knowledge, and patients are passive recipients of such knowledge. Counter to this clinician- and researcher-centred lens is a growing interest and awareness of patients as experts in their health. While naturopathic medicine is described and experienced as a patient-centred system of traditional medicine, the position of patient-held knowledge is unclear particularly when considered alongside their use of other more objective forms of knowledge such as research evidence.

METHODS

This international online cross-sectional survey aimed to explore naturopathic practitioners' perceptions of the value and contribution of patient-shared knowledge and information within the context of naturopathic clinical consultations.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 453 naturopathic practitioners (response rate: 74.3%). Approximately two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported using information shared by the patient. Most rated 'information provided by the patient' as either 'extremely important' (60.7%) or 'very important' (31.4%) to patients. Highest levels of trust were reported for information provided by the patient ('completely': 9.9%; 'a lot': 53.6%). Most practitioners indicated they trusted knowledge and information derived from the patient's personal health history 'completely' (n = 79; 21.8%) or 'a lot' (n = 226; 62.4%) from the patient's perspective of living with a health condition ('completely' [n = 63, 17.4%]; 'a lot' [n = 224, 61.9%]). Patients were the highest ranked stakeholder group (mean: 1.5) perceived to influence NP use of patient experience of living with a health condition to inform clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Researchers and policy makers are increasingly focused on the value of the 'expert patient' in clinical decision-making, yet health professionals' report challenges and, in some cases, resistance to meaningfully engaging with patient-shared knowledge in practice. However, our study has found patient-shared knowledge - inclusive of patient experience of their health condition - is among the knowledge used and trusted by naturopathic practitioners to inform their clinical decision-making. This study both offers insights into the knowledge translation behaviours of an under-researched health profession and provides a novel contribution to the wider aim of adopting patient-shared knowledge into clinical care more generally.

A conceptual framework for culturally appropriate advocacy with racialised groups

Independent mental health advocacy was introduced in England to protect and promote the rights of people detained under mental health legislation. However, shortcomings in access and delivery to racialised people, raising concerns about equity, were identified by a review of the Mental Health Act. The development of culturally appropriate advocacy was recommended. While the term culturally appropriate may be taken for granted it is poorly defined and limited efforts have conceptualized it in relation to advocacy. Ideally, advocacy operates as a liberatory practice to challenge epistemic injustice, which people experiencing poor mental health are at acute risk of. This is amplified for people from racialised communities through systemic racism. This paper argues that advocacy and culturally appropriate practices are especially relevant to racialised people. It clarifies the importance of culture, race and racism to the role of advocacy, and understanding advocacy through the conceptual lens of epistemic injustice. A central aim of the paper is to draw on and appraise cultural competency models to develop a conceptual framing of cultural appropriate advocacy to promote epistemic justice.

Perspectives About Racism and Patient-Clinician Communication Among Black Adults With Serious Illness

Importance

Black patients with serious illness experience higher-intensity care at the end of life. Little research has used critical, race-conscious approaches to examine factors associated with these outcomes.

Objective

To investigate the lived experiences of Black patients with serious illness and how various factors may be associated with patient-clinician communication and medical decision-making.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this qualitative study, one-on-one, semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 Black patients with serious illness hospitalized at an urban academic medical center in Washington State between January 2021 and February 2023. Patients were asked to discuss experiences with racism, how those experiences affected the way they communicated with clinicians, and how racism impacted medical decision-making. Public Health Critical Race Praxis was used as framework and process.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The experience and of racism and its association, as described by Black patients who had serious illness, with patient-clinician communication and medical decision-making within a racialized health care setting.

Results

A total of 25 Black patients (mean [SD] age, 62.0 [10.3] years; 20 males [80.0%]) with serious illness were interviewed. Participants had substantial socioeconomic disadvantage, with low levels of wealth (10 patients with 0 assets [40.0%]), income (annual income <$25 000 among 19 of 24 patients with income data [79.2%]), educational attainment (mean [SD] 13.4 [2.7] years of schooling), and health literacy (mean [SD] score in the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form, 5.8 [2.0]). Participants reported high levels of medical mistrust and high frequency of discrimination and microaggressions experienced in health care settings. Participants reported epistemic injustice as the most common manifestation of racism: silencing of their own knowledge and lived experiences about their bodies and illness by health care workers. Participants reported that these experiences made them feel isolated and devalued, especially if they had intersecting, marginalized identities, such as being underinsured or unhoused. These experiences were associated with exacerbation of existing medical mistrust and poor patient-clinician communication. Participants described various mechanisms of self-advocacy and medical decision-making based on prior experiences with mistreatment from health care workers and medical trauma.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that Black patients' experiences with racism, specifically epistemic injustice, were associated with their perspectives on medical care and decision-making during serious illness and end of life. These findings suggest that race-conscious, intersectional approaches may be needed to improve patient-clinician communication and support Black patients with serious illness to alleviate the distress and trauma of racism as these patients near the end of life.

Epistemic citizenship under structural siege: a meta-analysis drawing on 544 voices of service user experiences in Nordic mental health services

This paper presents a meta-analysis, drawing exclusively on qualitative research (n = 38), which contributes to findings on mental health service user experiences of received provisions and/or encounters in contemporary social and mental health services in the Nordic countries. The main objective is to identify facilitators of, and barriers to, various notions of service user involvement. Our findings provide empirical evidence regarding service users' experiences of participation in their encounters with mental health services. We identified two overarching themes, professional relations and the regulative framework and current rule and norm system, in the reviewed literature concerning facilitators and hindrances of user involvement in mental health services. By including the interrelated policy concept of 'active citizenship' and theoretical concept of 'epistemic (in)justice' in the analyses, the results provide foundations for broader exploration and problematization of the policy ideals of what we call 'epistemic citizenship' and contemporary practices in Nordic mental health organizations. Our conclusions include suggestions that linking micro-level experiences to organizational macro-level circumstances opens up avenues for further research on service user involvement.

Paternalistic persuasion: are doctors paternalistic when persuading patients, and how does persuasion differ from convincing and recommending?

In contemporary paternalism literature, persuasion is commonly not considered paternalistic. Moreover, paternalism is typically understood to be problematic either because it is seen as coercive, or because of the insult of the paternalist considering herself superior. In this paper, I argue that doctors who persuade patients act paternalistically. Specifically, I argue that trying to persuade a patient (here understood as aiming for the patient to consent to a certain treatment, although he prefers not to) should be differentiated from trying to convince him (here understood as aiming for the patient to want the treatment) and recommending (the doctor merely providing her professional opinion). These three forms of influence are illustrated by summaries of video-recorded hospital encounters. While convincing and recommending are generally not paternalistic, I argue that persuasion is what I call communicative paternalism and that it is problematic for two reasons. First, the patient's preferences are dismissed as unimportant. Second, the patient might wind up undergoing treatment against his preferences. This does not mean that persuasion always should be avoided, but it should not be undertaken lightly, and doctors should be aware of the fine line between non-paternalism and paternalism. The fact that my analysis of paternalism differs from traditional accounts does not imply that I deem these to be wrong, but rather that paternalism should be considered as a more multi-faceted concept than previous accounts allow for.

Moving Beyond the Doctor's Perspective of the Patient's Perspective

The emergence of narrative medicine has promoted reflective practices and story-telling as means of promoting compassion, building resiliency, and understanding the "patient" and "physician" as "persons." However, though some narrative medicine pieces describe patients' experiences, the narrative of the patient is usually told by physicians, producing a second-hand facsimile of the patient's lived experience. Stories written by physicians may have their roots in patient encounters, but are filtered through the physician's, rather than the patient's, understanding of the world. This focus on patient stories told by physicians replicates traditional gaps in legitimacy between the voices of physicians and patients and maintains the locus of power with physicians and the health care system. This paper explores the ways in which well-meaning physicians aiming to elevate patients' stories frequently fall short, and what we can do to better elevate patients' voices on the wards, in clinics, and in the medical literature. Stories about patients are important to help clinicians and trainees develop and practice compassionate person-centered care; stories written by patients on topics and with orientations of their choosing are currently lacking, and, we argue, even more important.

Epistemic justice is the basis of shared decision making

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence that share decision-making (SDM) is being successfully implemented, with a significant gap between theory and clinical practice. In this article we look at SDM explicitly acknowledging its social and cultural situatedness and examine it as a set of practices (e.g. actions, such as communicating, referring, or prescribing, and decisions relating to them). We study clinicians' communicative performance as anchored in the context of professional and institutional practice and within the expected behavioural norms of actors situated in clinical encounters.

DISCUSSION

We propose to see conditions for shared decision-making in terms of epistemic justice, an explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of the legitimacy of healthcare users and their accounts and knowledges. We propose that shared decision-making is primarily a communicative encounter which requires both participants to have equal communicative rights. It is a process that is started by the clinician's decision and requires the suspension of their inherent interactional advantage.

CONCLUSION

The epistemic-justice perspective we adopt leads to at least three implications for clinical practices. First, clinical training must go beyond the development of communication skills and focus more on an understanding of healthcare as a set of social practices. Second, we suggest medicine develop a stronger relationship with humanities and the social sciences. Third, we advocate that shared decision-making has issues of justice, equity, and agency at its core.