Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36900070›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Mental Health Experts as Objects of Epistemic Injustice-The Case of Autism Spectrum Condition.

Maciej Wodziński, Marcin Moskalewicz

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Redefining autism in adulthood interventionsFrontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Psychosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Maciej WodzińskiInstitute of Philosophy, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, M. Curie-Skłodowska sq. 4, 20-031 Lublin, Poland.
Marcin MoskalewiczInstitute of Philosophy, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, M. Curie-Skłodowska sq. 4, 20-031 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4270-7026

Funding

Ministry of Science and Higher Education DI 2018 001348
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This theoretical paper addresses the issue of epistemic injustice with particular reference to autism. Injustice is epistemic when harm is performed without adequate reason and is caused by or related to access to knowledge production and processing, e.g., concerning racial or ethnic minorities or patients. The paper argues that both mental health service users and providers can be subject to epistemic injustice. Cognitive diagnostic errors often appear when complex decisions are made in a limited timeframe. In those situations, the socially dominant ways of thinking about mental disorders and half-automated and operationalized diagnostic paradigms imprint on experts' decision-making processes. Recently, analyses have focused on how power operates in the service user-provider relationship. It was observed that cognitive injustice inflicts on patients through the lack of consideration of their first-person perspectives, denial of epistemic authority, and even epistemic subject status, among others. This paper shifts focus toward health professionals as rarely considered objects of epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice affects mental health providers by harming their access to and use of knowledge in their professional activities, thus affecting the reliability of their diagnostic assessments.

Indexed as

autismdiscriminationexpert knowledgehermeneutical injusticemental health diagnosisschizophreniasocial epistemologytestimonial injustice

Identifiers

PMID36900070
PMCPMC10000601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
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.