ArticleThe British journal of clinical psychology2022
Epistemic injustice amongst clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers: A qualitative thematic analysis study.
Article in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse Events Reporting in Digital Interventions Evaluations for Psychosis: A Systematic Literature Search and Individual Level Content Analysis of Adverse Event Reports.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2024Pooled it
- A reply to "Fundamental issues in epistemic injustice in healthcare" by Nielsen, Nordgaard & Henriksen (2025) : Corresponding author.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Testimonial Injustice and Its Harms in Hemodialysis Patients in Japan: A Qualitative Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Including people with lived experience in the development of the self-Dehumanisation in Psychosis Scale (DiPS): a reflective account.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- 'Lemons to lemonade': Identity integration in researchers with lived experience of psychosis.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2025Article
- Addressing epistemic injustice in the mental healthcare of Indigenous people in Bangladesh: Implications for global mental health.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- Mental Health Experts as Objects of Epistemic Injustice-The Case of Autism Spectrum Condition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Phenomenology as a resource for translational research in mental health: methodological trends, challenges and new directions.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2023Article
- Self-dehumanisation in voice hearers: the end of a continuum.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Epistemic injustice amongst clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers: A qualitative thematic analysis study.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesResearch has suggested people who hear voices may be at risk of epistemic injustice. This is a form of discrimination whereby someone is unfairly judged to be an unreliable knower (testimonial injustice) or is unable to contribute to, and therefore access, concepts that make sense of their experience within mainstream society (hermeneutical injustice). Voice-hearing occurs both in people who are mental health service users and in the general population (clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers, respectively). The degree of distress and impairment associated with voices has been shown to relate to how individuals make sense of their experiences and how others respond to their identity as a voice-hearer. The aim of this study was to explore people's experiences of epistemic injustice in relation to voice-hearing and to understand how these may differ between clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers.
designA qualitative design was used.
methodEight clinical and nine non-clinical voice-hearers partook in semi-structured interviews, which were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsThree pairs of themes related to (i) identity, (ii) relationships and (iii) power and position were constructed across the clinical and non-clinical groups, and two shared themes within both groups were created relating to testimonial and hermeneutical injustice.
conclusionBoth clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers described experiencing epistemic injustice in wider society. The presence of a 'safe haven' (e.g. spiritualist churches) for non-clinical voice-hearers ameliorated the impact of this to some degree, by allowing people to make connections with others with similar experiences within a non-judgemental and accepting community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.