Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37786530›Full record

ArticleHealth equity2023

Scoping Review of Restorative Justice in Academics and Medicine: A Powerful Tool for Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion.

Gregory Sawin, Christopher L Klasson, Samantha Kaplan, Jennifer Larson Sawin, Ann Brown, Sonoo Thadaney Israni, Jessica Schonberg, Ada Gregory

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health equity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Gregory SawinDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8541-6416
Christopher L KlassonUniversity of Iowa, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Samantha KaplanDuke University Medical Center Library and Archives, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Jennifer Larson SawinIndependent Researcher and Restorative Justice Consultant, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Ann BrownDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Sonoo Thadaney IsraniStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Jessica SchonbergOffice for Faculty, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Ada GregoryKenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Restorative Justice (RJ) as a practice and mindset is growing within academic medicine and health care. The authors aim to categorize the extent to which RJ training and practices have been researched, explored, and applied within health care, medicine, and academic contexts. Methods: In July 2021, the authors conducted a scoping literature review, searching four databases for peer-reviewed articles and book chapters discussing RJ. Authors also used bibliography searches and personal knowledge to add relevant work. Reviewers independently screened article titles and abstracts, assessing the full texts of potentially eligible articles with inclusion and exclusion criteria. From each included article, authors extracted the publication year, first author's country of origin, specific screening criteria met, and the depth with which it discussed RJ. Results: From 599 articles screened, 39 articles, and books were included (published 2001-2021). Twenty-five (64%) articles discussed RJ theory with few describing application practices with substantial depth. Ten (26%) articles only referenced the term "restorative justice" and seven (18%) discussed legal applications in health care. Fifty-four percent were from outside the United States. Articles tended to describe RJ uses to address harm and often missed the opportunity to explore RJ's capacity to proactively build community and culture that helps prevent harm. Conclusions: RJ in health care is a rapidly expanding field that offers a framework capable of building stronger communities, authentically preventing and responding to harm, inviting radical inclusion of diverse participants to build shared understanding and culture, and ameliorate some of the most toxic and unproductive hierarchical practices in academics and medicine. Most literature calls to RJ for help to respond to harm, although there are very few well-designed and evaluated implementations. Investment in RJ practices holds significant promise to steer our historically hierarchical, "othering" and imperfect systems to align with values of justice (vs. punishment), equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Indexed as

harmJEDI (justice, equity, diversity, inclusion)malpracticeprofessionalismrestorative justice

Identifiers

PMID37786530
PMCPMC10541936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.