Intersectionality in quantitative health disparities research: A systematic review of challenges and limitations in empirical studies.
Intersectionality in quantitative health disparities research: A systematic review of challenges and limitations in empirical studies.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113876
复制
发表时间：
2021-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lee C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harari L;Lee C
定量健康差异研究越来越多地采用交叉性作为理论工具来研究社会特征如何交叉产生健康不平等。然而，交叉性并不是为了量化、预测或识别健康差异而设计的，因此，对其在健康差异研究中的误用提出了多种批评。因此，越来越需要对旨在通过交叉视角调查健康差异的数量研究进行评估。我们从最早的记录到2020年1月进行了系统回顾，以(i)描述将交叉性应用于定量健康差异研究时的局限性范围，以及（ii）确定建议，以改善未来与该奖学金的交叉性整合。我们通过PubMed和CA Web of Science的电子搜索确定了相关的出版物。有资格纳入的研究是使用定量方法调查美国成年人健康差异的英语出版物，同时明确声称采用交叉视角。在审查的1279篇文章中，有65篇符合纳入条件。我们的回顾发现，虽然交叉性对健康差异研究的价值是显而易见的，但现有的研究努力满足交叉性的基本假设。特别是，发现了四个普遍存在的局限性：缩小了交叉性、交叉性群体和健康结果的测量范围；把某些交叉群体的研究放在首位而忽视其他群体；忽视导致交叉群体所经历的健康差异的潜在解释机制；而且，缺乏使用生命历程视角来显示不同生命阶段的健康差异。如果要在不同的交叉群体中实现健康平等的目标，就必须通过收集和检查克服这些限制的数据来协助未来的研究。
Quantitative health disparities research has increasingly employed intersectionality as a theoretical tool to investigate how social characteristics intersect to generate health inequality. Yet, intersectionality was not designed to quantify, predict, or identify health disparities, and, as a result, multiple criticisms against its misapplication in health disparities research have been made. As such, there is an emerging need to evaluate the growing body of quantitative research that aims to investigate health disparities through an intersectional lens. We conducted a systematic review from earliest records to January 2020 to (i) describe the scope of limitations when applying intersectionality to quantitative health disparities research, and (ii) identify recommendations to improve the future integration of intersectionality with this scholarship. We identified relevant publications with electronic searches in PubMed and CA Web of Science. Studies eligible for inclusion were English-language publications that used quantitative methodologies to investigate health disparities among adults in the U.S. while explicitly claiming to adopt an intersectional perspective. Out of 1,279 articles reviewed, 65 were eligible for inclusion. Our review found that, while the value of intersectionality to the study of health disparities is evident, the existing research struggles with meeting intersectionality’s fundamental assumptions. In particular, four limitations were found to be widespread: narrowing the measurements of intersectionality, intersectional groups, and health outcomes; placing primacy on the study of certain intersectional groups to the neglect of others; overlooking underlying explanatory mechanisms that contribute to the health disparities experienced by intersectional groups; and, lacking in the use of life-course perspectives to show how health disparities vary across different life stages. If the goal of health equality is to be achieved among diverse intersectional groups, future research must be assisted by the collection and examination of data that overcomes these limitations.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4
作者：
Bowleg, Lisa;Bauer, Greta
通讯作者：
Bauer, Greta
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Hulko, Wendy
通讯作者：
Hulko, Wendy
DOI：
10.1093/geronb/51b.6.s319
发表时间：
1996-11-01
影响因子：
6.2
作者：
Ferraro, KF;Farmer, MM
通讯作者：
Farmer, MM
影响因子：
4
作者：
Else-Quest, Nicole M.;Hyde, Janet Shibley
通讯作者：
Hyde, Janet Shibley
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Bauer, Greta R.;Scheim, Ayden I.
通讯作者：
Scheim, Ayden I.