Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42542952›Full record

ArticleNursing inquiry2026

When Care Does Not Count: Epistemic Injustice and the Organisational Recognition of Nursing Knowledge.

Maria Antuna-Casal, Marta Rios

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Maria Antuna-CasalNursing Area, Department of Medicine, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6898-032X
Marta RiosNursing Area, Department of Medicine, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3275-1026

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This discussion paper examines how care-based nursing judgement becomes recognised, narrowed or excluded as professional knowledge within healthcare organisations. Nursing care is often described as relational, ethical, practical or compassionate, yet these descriptions may obscure its epistemic content: trained perception, contextual interpretation, anticipatory reasoning, moral judgement, continuity work and practical synthesis under uncertainty. Drawing on epistemic injustice, nursing knowledge development, care ethics and organisational governance, the paper argues that injustice in nursing knowledge is not only interpersonal but organisational. It identifies three mechanisms through which care-based nursing knowledge may be downgraded: credibility distortion, interpretive narrowing and restricted epistemic uptake. The paper further develops the idea of reductive recognition: care may become visible in organisational systems only after being translated into categories that diminish its nursing rationality. Five organisational conditions are proposed for recognising care as knowledge: credible reception, hermeneutic infrastructure, shared knowledge governance, educational preparation and balanced standardisation. The central contribution is to shift the question from whether nurses possess knowledge to how healthcare organisations decide which forms of nursing knowledge are allowed to count.

Indexed as

KnowledgeSocial JusticeHumanscareepistemic injusticeepistemic justicegovernancehealthcare organisationsnursing knowledgenursing theoryprofessional judgement

Identifiers

PMID42542952
PMCPMC13429033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.