Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31911498›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020

Uncovering social structures and informational prejudices to reduce inequity in delivery and uptake of new molecular technologies.

Sara Filoche, Peter Stone, Fiona Cram, Sondra Bacharach, Anthony Dowell, Dianne Sika-Paotonu, Angela Beard, Judy Ormandy, Christina Buchanan, Michelle Thunders and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sara FilocheDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Women's Health and Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand sara.filoche@otago.ac.nz.ORCID 0000-0002-0874-6494
Peter StoneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Fiona CramKatoa Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sondra BacharachSchool of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Anthony DowellDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Dianne Sika-PaotonuDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Angela BeardChristchurch Obstetric Associates, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Judy OrmandyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Christina BuchananFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Michelle ThundersDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Kevin DewSchool of Social and Cultural Studies, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
University of Otago · NZUniversity of Auckland · NZVictoria University of Wellington · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in molecular technologies have the potential to help remedy health inequities through earlier detection and prevention; if, however, their delivery and uptake (and therefore any benefits associated with such testing) are not more carefully considered, there is a very real risk that existing inequities in access and use will be further exacerbated. We argue this risk relates to the way that information and knowledge about the technology is both acquired and shared, or not, between health practitioners and their patients.A healthcare system can be viewed as a complex social network comprising individuals with different worldviews, hierarchies, professional cultures and subcultures and personal beliefs, both for those giving and receiving care. When healthcare practitioners are not perceived as knowledge equals, they would experience informational prejudices, and the result is that knowledge dissemination across and between them would be impeded. The uptake and delivery of a new technology may be inequitable as a result. Patients would also experience informational prejudice when they are viewed as not being able to understand the information that is presented to them, and information may be withheld.Informational prejudices driven by social relations and structures have thus far been underexplored in considering (in)equitable implementation and uptake of new molecular technologies. Every healthcare interaction represents an opportunity for experiencing informational prejudice, and with it the risk of being inappropriately informed for undertaking (or offering) such screening or testing. Making knowledge acquisition and information dissemination, and experiences of informational prejudice, explicit through sociologically framed investigations would extend our understandings of (in)equity, and offer ways to affect network relationships and structures that support equity in delivery and uptake.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePrejudiceHumansgenetic informationinformed consentProfessional - professional relationshipquality of health caresociology

Identifiers

PMID31911498
PMCPMC7656149
OpenAlexW3000631634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.