ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025
Exploring the dimensions of discrimination in emergency department services: a qualitative study.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscrimination in hospital emergency departments (EDs) undermines health equity, patient trust, and the quality of care. Although its global prevalence is well recognized, little is known about the deeper systemic, structural, and cultural forces fueling discrimination within Iran’s healthcare system. This study aimed to illuminate the hidden dimensions and mechanisms of discrimination in ED services, providing insights to inform meaningful policy and practice reforms.
methodsA qualitative study using thematic content analysis was conducted from December 2024 to July 2025. Participants represented diverse stakeholder groups involved in emergency care, including patients, family members, and healthcare professionals. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling with maximum variation. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews lasting 25–60 min, totaling over 12 h. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed with Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework using MAXQDA 2022. Study rigor was ensured through the application of Lincoln and Guba’s trustworthiness criteria, alongside reflexive practices to minimize researcher bias.
resultsTwenty participants took part in the study, including 12 ED patients, their family members, and eight healthcare professionals. Analysis produced six main categories and 24 subcategories: (1) non-transparent, bias-driven prioritization; (2) power asymmetry in staff–patient interactions; (3) reproduction of discrimination due to dysfunctional organizational structures; (4) misalignment between patients’ experiences and clinical templates; (5) discriminatory attitudes embedded in contextual culture; and (6) conflict between care ethics and institutional rules.
conclusionsThis study shows that discrimination in EDs is not just the result of individual bias, but a systemic issue shaped by organizational shortcomings, cultural attitudes, and power imbalances in staff–patient interactions. These patterns erode trust, compromise humane care, and leave many patients feeling marginalized. Addressing such inequities requires structural and cultural change that promotes transparency, empathy, and patient-centered values in emergency care.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.