学术和医学恢复性司法的范围审查:司法公平、多样性和包容性的有力工具。

IF 2.6 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Equity Pub Date : 2023-09-29 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1089/heq.2023.0071
Gregory Sawin, Christopher L Klasson, Samantha Kaplan, Jennifer Larson Sawin, Ann Brown, Sonoo Thadaney Israni, Jessica Schonberg, Ada Gregory
{"title":"学术和医学恢复性司法的范围审查:司法公平、多样性和包容性的有力工具。","authors":"Gregory Sawin,&nbsp;Christopher L Klasson,&nbsp;Samantha Kaplan,&nbsp;Jennifer Larson Sawin,&nbsp;Ann Brown,&nbsp;Sonoo Thadaney Israni,&nbsp;Jessica Schonberg,&nbsp;Ada Gregory","doi":"10.1089/heq.2023.0071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Restorative Justice (RJ) as a practice and mindset is growing within academic medicine and health care. The authors aim to categorize the extent to which RJ training and practices have been researched, explored, and applied within health care, medicine, and academic contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In July 2021, the authors conducted a scoping literature review, searching four databases for peer-reviewed articles and book chapters discussing RJ. Authors also used bibliography searches and personal knowledge to add relevant work. Reviewers independently screened article titles and abstracts, assessing the full texts of potentially eligible articles with inclusion and exclusion criteria. From each included article, authors extracted the publication year, first author's country of origin, specific screening criteria met, and the depth with which it discussed RJ.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 599 articles screened, 39 articles, and books were included (published 2001-2021). Twenty-five (64%) articles discussed RJ theory with few describing application practices with substantial depth. Ten (26%) articles only referenced the term \"restorative justice\" and seven (18%) discussed legal applications in health care. Fifty-four percent were from outside the United States. Articles tended to describe RJ uses to address harm and often missed the opportunity to explore RJ's capacity to proactively build community and culture that helps prevent harm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RJ in health care is a rapidly expanding field that offers a framework capable of building stronger communities, authentically preventing and responding to harm, inviting radical inclusion of diverse participants to build shared understanding and culture, and ameliorate some of the most toxic and unproductive hierarchical practices in academics and medicine. Most literature calls to RJ for help to respond to harm, although there are very few well-designed and evaluated implementations. Investment in RJ practices holds significant promise to steer our historically hierarchical, \"othering\" and imperfect systems to align with values of justice (vs. punishment), equity, diversity, and inclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":36602,"journal":{"name":"Health Equity","volume":"7 1","pages":"663-675"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10541936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoping Review of Restorative Justice in Academics and Medicine: A Powerful Tool for Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion.\",\"authors\":\"Gregory Sawin,&nbsp;Christopher L Klasson,&nbsp;Samantha Kaplan,&nbsp;Jennifer Larson Sawin,&nbsp;Ann Brown,&nbsp;Sonoo Thadaney Israni,&nbsp;Jessica Schonberg,&nbsp;Ada Gregory\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/heq.2023.0071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Restorative Justice (RJ) as a practice and mindset is growing within academic medicine and health care. The authors aim to categorize the extent to which RJ training and practices have been researched, explored, and applied within health care, medicine, and academic contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In July 2021, the authors conducted a scoping literature review, searching four databases for peer-reviewed articles and book chapters discussing RJ. Authors also used bibliography searches and personal knowledge to add relevant work. Reviewers independently screened article titles and abstracts, assessing the full texts of potentially eligible articles with inclusion and exclusion criteria. From each included article, authors extracted the publication year, first author's country of origin, specific screening criteria met, and the depth with which it discussed RJ.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 599 articles screened, 39 articles, and books were included (published 2001-2021). Twenty-five (64%) articles discussed RJ theory with few describing application practices with substantial depth. Ten (26%) articles only referenced the term \\\"restorative justice\\\" and seven (18%) discussed legal applications in health care. Fifty-four percent were from outside the United States. Articles tended to describe RJ uses to address harm and often missed the opportunity to explore RJ's capacity to proactively build community and culture that helps prevent harm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RJ in health care is a rapidly expanding field that offers a framework capable of building stronger communities, authentically preventing and responding to harm, inviting radical inclusion of diverse participants to build shared understanding and culture, and ameliorate some of the most toxic and unproductive hierarchical practices in academics and medicine. Most literature calls to RJ for help to respond to harm, although there are very few well-designed and evaluated implementations. Investment in RJ practices holds significant promise to steer our historically hierarchical, \\\"othering\\\" and imperfect systems to align with values of justice (vs. punishment), equity, diversity, and inclusion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Equity\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"663-675\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10541936/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Equity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2023.0071\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Equity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2023.0071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:恢复性司法(RJ)作为一种实践和心态正在学术医学和医疗保健领域发展。作者旨在对RJ培训和实践在医疗保健、医学和学术环境中的研究、探索和应用程度进行分类。方法:2021年7月,作者进行了一次范围界定文献综述,在四个数据库中搜索同行评审的文章和讨论RJ的书籍章节。作者还利用参考书目搜索和个人知识添加了相关作品。审稿人独立筛选文章标题和摘要,根据纳入和排除标准评估潜在合格文章的全文。从每一篇收录的文章中,作者提取了发表年份、第一作者的原籍国、符合的具体筛选标准以及讨论RJ的深度。结果:从筛选的599篇文章中,收录了39篇文章和书籍(2001-2021年出版)。二十五篇(64%)文章讨论了RJ理论,很少有文章深入描述应用实践。10篇(26%)文章只提到“恢复性司法”一词,7篇(18%)文章讨论了医疗保健中的法律应用。54%来自美国境外。文章倾向于描述RJ用于解决伤害的方法,并经常错过探索RJ主动建立有助于预防伤害的社区和文化的能力的机会。结论:医疗保健中的RJ是一个迅速扩展的领域,它提供了一个框架,能够建立更强大的社区,真正预防和应对伤害,邀请不同的参与者积极参与,以建立共同的理解和文化,并改善学术和医学中一些最有害和最低效的等级做法。大多数文献都呼吁RJ帮助应对伤害,尽管很少有经过精心设计和评估的实现。对RJ实践的投资有望引导我们历史上的等级制度、“另类”和不完善的制度与正义(相对于惩罚)、公平、多样性和包容性的价值观保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scoping Review of Restorative Justice in Academics and Medicine: A Powerful Tool for Justice Equity Diversity and Inclusion.

Purpose: Restorative Justice (RJ) as a practice and mindset is growing within academic medicine and health care. The authors aim to categorize the extent to which RJ training and practices have been researched, explored, and applied within health care, medicine, and academic contexts.

Methods: In July 2021, the authors conducted a scoping literature review, searching four databases for peer-reviewed articles and book chapters discussing RJ. Authors also used bibliography searches and personal knowledge to add relevant work. Reviewers independently screened article titles and abstracts, assessing the full texts of potentially eligible articles with inclusion and exclusion criteria. From each included article, authors extracted the publication year, first author's country of origin, specific screening criteria met, and the depth with which it discussed RJ.

Results: From 599 articles screened, 39 articles, and books were included (published 2001-2021). Twenty-five (64%) articles discussed RJ theory with few describing application practices with substantial depth. Ten (26%) articles only referenced the term "restorative justice" and seven (18%) discussed legal applications in health care. Fifty-four percent were from outside the United States. Articles tended to describe RJ uses to address harm and often missed the opportunity to explore RJ's capacity to proactively build community and culture that helps prevent harm.

Conclusions: RJ in health care is a rapidly expanding field that offers a framework capable of building stronger communities, authentically preventing and responding to harm, inviting radical inclusion of diverse participants to build shared understanding and culture, and ameliorate some of the most toxic and unproductive hierarchical practices in academics and medicine. Most literature calls to RJ for help to respond to harm, although there are very few well-designed and evaluated implementations. Investment in RJ practices holds significant promise to steer our historically hierarchical, "othering" and imperfect systems to align with values of justice (vs. punishment), equity, diversity, and inclusion.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Equity
Health Equity Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
97
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Getting Ours? "Girlbossing" and the Ethics of Nurse Reimbursement Models. "She's a Family Member": How Community Health Workers Impact Perinatal Mothers' Stress Through Social-Emotional Support and Connections to Programs and Resources. Diversifying Doulas Initiative: Improving Maternal Health Outcomes in People of Color Through Doula Care. Improving Weight Bias Awareness Among Providers in the Sexual and Reproductive Health care Setting. Racial (In)Equity in South Los Angeles-Community Centered Experiences with COVID-19 Syndemics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1