ArticleThe Gerontologist2026
The right to be heard: exploring epistemic injustice in dementia care-A qualitative study.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEpistemic injustice, introduced by philosopher Miranda Fricker in 2007, refers to harm affecting individuals as knowers because of social prejudices and stereotyping. This leads to the partial or complete exclusion of certain individuals from knowledge building. People living with dementia are particularly vulnerable because cognitive impairments may reinforce assumptions about reduced credibility, marginalizing their voices in clinical, social, and family contexts and limiting opportunities to exercise epistemic agency. This research examines how people living with dementia experience epistemic injustice in everyday life and how it shapes their participation as knowers in clinical, social, and family contexts. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a conversational approach was conducted. Participants (N = 15) with a dementia diagnosis were interviewed in their homes or nursing homes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and meanings.
resultsThree interconnected domains were identified: epistemic marginalization in clinical encounters, everyday negotiation of competence and agency, and epistemic invalidation and silencing in interpersonal relationships. Participants often perceived these experiences as appropriate or expected rather than unjust, reflecting internalized stigma. Many felt their perspectives were no longer recognized as valuable, leading to withdrawal from care and communication and fewer opportunities to contribute their knowledge. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Epistemic injustice extends beyond healthcare, affecting everyday and family interactions by progressively limiting opportunities for people living with dementia to participate as credible knowers. Its normalization fosters self-silencing, perpetuating disempowerment, and social exclusion.
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.