Scholarlink

<p>There are significant health disparities that exist in Washington, DC, especially when considering variables such as race, socioeconomic status, place of residence, and language. This study analyzes and compares the medical humanities literature to scientific literature to identify if the medical humanities can illuminate more of the root causes of health disparities. A systematic search was conducted, identifying a total of 119 articles for analysis. Of those articles, 51 were tagged as medical humanities papers, or studies exploring the ethical, historical, literary, philosophical, and religious dimensions of medicine and health. Data extracted from each article included age, gender, and race of the study population, the condition studied, and significant barriers to health. Analysis revealed that medical humanities papers were significantly more likely to identify systemic information gaps (78.4% vs 30.9%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and stigma-related barriers (27.5% vs 5.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.002) compared to scientific papers. The results underscore that methods used within the medical humanities literature can uniquely identify social, cultural, economic, and political drivers of health that are often under addressed by traditional quantitative methods and therefore should be utilized in the education of future healthcare and public health professionals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Mapping DC health inequities: a scoping review comparing scientific and medical humanities approaches

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月2日

查看全文
  • Sweta Ghatti,
  • Scott Dorris,
  • Xue Geng,
  • Christopher J. King,
  • Lakshmi Krishnan

摘要

There are significant health disparities that exist in Washington, DC, especially when considering variables such as race, socioeconomic status, place of residence, and language. This study analyzes and compares the medical humanities literature to scientific literature to identify if the medical humanities can illuminate more of the root causes of health disparities. A systematic search was conducted, identifying a total of 119 articles for analysis. Of those articles, 51 were tagged as medical humanities papers, or studies exploring the ethical, historical, literary, philosophical, and religious dimensions of medicine and health. Data extracted from each article included age, gender, and race of the study population, the condition studied, and significant barriers to health. Analysis revealed that medical humanities papers were significantly more likely to identify systemic information gaps (78.4% vs 30.9%, p < 0.001) and stigma-related barriers (27.5% vs 5.9%, p = 0.002) compared to scientific papers. The results underscore that methods used within the medical humanities literature can uniquely identify social, cultural, economic, and political drivers of health that are often under addressed by traditional quantitative methods and therefore should be utilized in the education of future healthcare and public health professionals.