Medical Humanities Research Reveals Overlooked Barriers to Health Care Equity in Washington, DC
A recent academic study has taken a deep and thoughtful look at health care disparities in Washington, DC, and reached a conclusion that may reshape how inequities are studied and addressed. By comparing traditional scientific research with medical humanities–based studies, the researchers found that medical humanities approaches consistently uncover critical barriers to health care access that quantitative research often overlooks.
The study, titled Mapping DC Inequities: A Scoping Review Comparing Scientific and Medical Humanities Approaches, was published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications in 2025. It brings together five decades of research on health disparities in the nation’s capital and offers a detailed comparison of how different research methods shape what we understand about inequity.
Understanding Health Disparities in Washington, DC
Washington, DC, is a city of sharp contrasts. While it is home to world-class hospitals, research institutions, and federal health agencies, many residents still face significant challenges accessing quality health care. Health outcomes vary dramatically by neighborhood, race, and socioeconomic status.
Predominantly Black communities in DC experience higher rates of chronic illnesses, including asthma, hypertension, diabetes, and poorer maternal health outcomes, compared to largely white neighborhoods. These patterns have persisted for decades, raising questions about why disparities remain despite advances in medicine and public health.
The research team behind this study set out to examine not just what disparities exist, but how researchers study them, and whether certain methods are better suited to revealing the root causes of inequity.
Who Conducted the Study and Why
The study was led by Sweta Ghatti, a fourth-year medical student at Georgetown University School of Medicine. The project began as part of a Mitchell Summer Research Scholarship, a program focused on addressing local health challenges in the District of Columbia.
Ghatti worked closely for nearly two years with Dr. Lakshmi Krishnan, an assistant professor of medicine and director of Georgetown Medical Humanities. The research team also included Christopher J. King, Dean of Georgetown’s School of Health, who contributed expertise in health systems and policy.
Their shared goal was to systematically map decades of research on DC health disparities and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of scientific versus medical humanities methodologies.
What Are Medical Humanities and Why Do They Matter
Medical humanities is an interdisciplinary field that examines health and illness through lenses such as ethics, history, literature, philosophy, social sciences, communication studies, and the arts. Rather than focusing solely on numbers, outcomes, or clinical indicators, medical humanities emphasizes human experience, lived realities, and social context.
This approach includes areas like narrative medicine, patient storytelling, historical analysis of health systems, and qualitative research that explores how individuals and communities interact with health care institutions.
According to the researchers, medical humanities provides a more human-centered understanding of health care, capturing factors like trust, stigma, communication, and cultural experience that are difficult to quantify but deeply influential.
How the Study Was Conducted
The research team began with an extensive review of more than 1,500 academic papers published over approximately 50 years. Using strict inclusion criteria, they narrowed the pool to 119 studies that were:
- Specifically focused on Washington, DC
- Centered on identifiable health conditions or health care issues
- Relevant to health disparities or inequities
Of the final 119 papers, 51 were categorized as medical humanities studies, while the remainder were more traditional quantitative scientific studies.
The researchers then compared how often each type of study identified specific categories of barriers to health care access.
Key Findings That Stand Out
The results showed a clear and statistically significant difference between the two research approaches.
Medical humanities studies were far more likely to identify systemic information gaps, such as confusion about health services, lack of clarity in navigating the health care system, or missing institutional support. These gaps were identified in 78.4% of medical humanities studies, compared to 30.9% of quantitative studies.
The difference was even more striking when it came to stigma-related barriers. Medical humanities research identified stigma as a barrier in 27.5% of cases, while only 5% of scientific studies addressed stigma at all.
These findings suggest that quantitative research, while valuable for measuring outcomes, often fails to capture the social and emotional dimensions of health care access.
Barriers That Numbers Alone Don’t Reveal
Medical humanities studies consistently highlighted challenges that resist easy measurement. These include language barriers, mistrust of health care institutions, poor communication between patients and providers, and the lasting impact of historical and structural inequalities.
Patients’ experiences navigating health systems, particularly in marginalized communities, are shaped by more than clinical availability. Feelings of being dismissed, misunderstood, or stigmatized can directly influence whether individuals seek care, follow treatment plans, or trust medical advice.
The study emphasizes that health care does not begin or end at the hospital door. Instead, it is embedded in social environments, cultural histories, and personal experiences that shape how care is accessed and received.
Why Quantitative and Qualitative Research Should Work Together
Rather than arguing that one approach should replace the other, the researchers stress that scientific and medical humanities approaches are complementary. Quantitative studies excel at identifying patterns, prevalence, and measurable outcomes, while medical humanities adds depth, texture, and context.
Together, these perspectives provide a more complete picture of health inequity. Breaking health care experiences into isolated data points risks overlooking the enduring social forces that shape outcomes across generations.
By combining methodologies, researchers and policymakers can better identify meaningful opportunities for intervention.
Implications for Medical Education and Practice
One of the most important takeaways from the study is its relevance to medical and public health education. The researchers argue that medical humanities should be normalized within health professions training, rather than treated as an optional or peripheral subject.
Understanding patients as people with complex lives, histories, and social contexts is essential for advancing health equity and population health. Medical humanities can help future clinicians and public health professionals recognize barriers that standard metrics miss.
The findings also have implications for research design and policy development, encouraging institutions to invest in studies that capture both measurable obstacles and lived experiences.
Health Inequity as a Persistent Challenge
The study spans five decades of research, highlighting a sobering reality: health care disparities in Washington, DC, have persisted for generations. Despite advancements in medicine, inequities remain deeply rooted in structural and social conditions.
This persistence underscores the risks of relying on a single research lens or intervention strategy. According to the authors, the stakes are simply too high to ignore the human dimensions of health care access.
Research Reference
Mapping DC Inequities: A Scoping Review Comparing Scientific and Medical Humanities Approaches
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06157-0
