IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v30y2021i5-6p892-899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethics, health disparities, and discourses in oncology nursing’s research: If we know the problems, why are we asking the wrong questions?

Author

Listed:
  • Em Rabelais
  • Rachel K. Walker

Abstract

Aims and Objectives To disrupt conflations between ‘health disparities research’ and critical engagement with racism, whiteness, other oppressions and our profession's ongoing roles in white supremacy. Background In Oncology Nursing Society's (ONS) 2019–2023 research agenda, health disparities are highlighted as a top priority for nursing knowledge generation and intervention. The document concludes needs for increased ‘minority and vulnerable population’ participation in cancer clinical trials, reduced financial toxicity, behavioural interventions for risk reduction, incorporation of social determinants of health and technology to promote rural access to high‐quality care. Design In this critical resistive, theoretical and ethical analysis on current discourses on health disparities research in oncology nursing, we ask: (a) What forces (stated and unstated) shape current oncology nursing discourses about health disparities?; (b) What assumptions about health and power are embedded in these discourses?; (c) Are we, as nurses and scientists, asking the right questions? Methods Line‐by‐line analysis of the ONS Research Agenda for 2019–2023 ‘Health Disparities’ section. Results The health disparities described in this report are not new to the literature, nor are many of the proposed solutions. As noted, disparities such as disproportionate cancer‐related morbidity and mortality across identities (gender, race and sexual orientation) have not improved and some have worsened over several decades. Conclusions That discourses on prioritising cancer‐related health disparities persist while disparity‐related outcomes remain largely unchanged presents challenges—both moral and pragmatic. We must ask, ‘Rather than the concept of “health disparities,” as presently understood in cancer nursing, what is the better approach to examine health equity and ethical nursing research practices?’ Relevance to Clinical Practice This paper offers several starting places for nurses, especially with the following questions: ‘Who does this harm?’ Answer then revise: ‘Who might this harm now?’ Answer then revise: ‘Are these harms worth the activity?’ And repeat this process.

Suggested Citation

  • Em Rabelais & Rachel K. Walker, 2021. "Ethics, health disparities, and discourses in oncology nursing’s research: If we know the problems, why are we asking the wrong questions?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5-6), pages 892-899, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:5-6:p:892-899
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15569
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15569?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ray, Lana & Wylie, Lloy & Corrado, Ann Marie, 2022. "Shapeshifters, systems thinking and settler colonial logic: Expanding the framework of analysis of Indigenous health equity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 300(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:5-6:p:892-899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.