ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025
Multi-professional healthcare teams, medical dominance, and institutional epistemic injustice.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Care Does Not Count: Epistemic Injustice and the Organisational Recognition of Nursing Knowledge.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
- Pharmacy students' perspectives and training needs on simulation-based interprofessional education at a University in Southwestern Uganda: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Which Factors Promote Interprofessional Competence in Placements on a Training Ward? New Findings.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Primary Care or Primary Problem? Aligning Access Pathways with Patient Needs Across the Care Continuum.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Navigating uncertainty in evidence-informed decision-making for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine: An updated critical interpretive review.Integrative medicine research · 2026Review
- Sepsis, Patient Monitoring and Nursing Research.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- The Gordian Knot That Is Patient and Public Involvement in Interprofessional Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Supply, demand and use of economic evidence in vaccine policymaking in Africa: A scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Whose voice is heard? Mental health professionals' involvement, epistemic injustice, and the ethics of psychiatric advance directives.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Improving education in perinatal mental health, a participatory qualitative analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Viewpoints of Healthcare Professionals on Care Delivery Within the Frames of Old-Age Mental Telehealth Services Operating in Low-Resource Settings.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Evidence Summary for Pain Assessment and Management After Hemorrhoidal Surgery to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multi-professional teams have become increasingly common in healthcare. Collaboration within such teams aims to enable knowledge amalgamation across specializations and to thereby improve standards of care for patients with complex health issues. However, multi-professional teamwork comes with certain challenges, as it requires successful communication across disciplinary and professional frameworks. In addition, work in multi-professional teams is often characterized by medical dominance, i.e., the perspective of physicians is prioritized over those of nurses, social workers, or other professionals. We argue that medical dominance in multi-professional teams can lead to institutional epistemic injustice, which affects both providers and patients negatively. Firstly, it codifies and promotes a systematic and unfair credibility deflation of the perspectives of professionals other than physicians. Secondly, it indirectly promotes epistemic injustice towards patients via leading to institutional opacity; i.e., via creating an intransparent system of credibility norms that is difficult to navigate. To overcome these problems, multi-professional teamwork requires institutional settings that promote epistemic equity of team members.
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.