Contextualizing Disparities: The Case for Comparative Research on Social Inequalities in Health.

Sigrun Olafsdottir, Jason Beckfield, Elyas Bakhtiari
{"title":"Contextualizing Disparities: The Case for Comparative Research on Social Inequalities in Health.","authors":"Sigrun Olafsdottir, Jason Beckfield, Elyas Bakhtiari","doi":"10.1108/s0275-4959(2013)0000031015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Research on healthcare disparities is making important descriptive and analytical strides, and the issue of disparities has gained the attention of policymakers in the US, other nation-states, and international organizations. Still, disparities scholarship remains US-centric and too rarely takes a cross-national comparative approach to answering its questions. The US-centricity of disparities research has fostered a fixation on race and ethnicity that, although essential to understanding health disparities in the United States, has truncated the range of questions researchers investigate. In this article, we make a case for comparative research that highlights its ability to identify the institutional factors may affect disparities.</p><p><strong>Methodology/approach: </strong>We discuss the central methodological challenges to comparative research. After describing current solutions to such problems, we use data from the World Values Survey to show the impact of key social fault lines on self-assessed health in Europe and the U.S.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The negative impact of SES on health is more generalizable across context, than the impact of race/ethnicity or gender.</p><p><strong>Research limitations/implications: </strong>Our analysis includes a limited number of countries and relies on one measure of health.</p><p><strong>Originality/value of paper: </strong>The paper represents a first step in a research agenda to understand health inequalities within and across societies.</p>","PeriodicalId":74681,"journal":{"name":"Research in the sociology of health care","volume":"31 ","pages":"299-317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5533504/pdf/nihms880588.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in the sociology of health care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/s0275-4959(2013)0000031015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Research on healthcare disparities is making important descriptive and analytical strides, and the issue of disparities has gained the attention of policymakers in the US, other nation-states, and international organizations. Still, disparities scholarship remains US-centric and too rarely takes a cross-national comparative approach to answering its questions. The US-centricity of disparities research has fostered a fixation on race and ethnicity that, although essential to understanding health disparities in the United States, has truncated the range of questions researchers investigate. In this article, we make a case for comparative research that highlights its ability to identify the institutional factors may affect disparities.

Methodology/approach: We discuss the central methodological challenges to comparative research. After describing current solutions to such problems, we use data from the World Values Survey to show the impact of key social fault lines on self-assessed health in Europe and the U.S.

Findings: The negative impact of SES on health is more generalizable across context, than the impact of race/ethnicity or gender.

Research limitations/implications: Our analysis includes a limited number of countries and relies on one measure of health.

Originality/value of paper: The paper represents a first step in a research agenda to understand health inequalities within and across societies.

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
将差异情景化:健康中的社会不平等现象比较研究》。
目的:有关医疗差距的研究在描述性和分析性方面取得了重要进展,差距问题也得到了美国、其他国家和国际组织决策者的关注。然而,差距问题的研究仍然以美国为中心,很少采用跨国比较的方法来回答问题。差异研究以美国为中心的做法助长了对种族和民族的固守,虽然这对理解美国的健康差异至关重要,但却截断了研究人员调查问题的范围。在本文中,我们提出了比较研究的理由,强调比较研究有能力识别可能影响差异的制度因素:我们讨论了比较研究在方法上面临的主要挑战。在介绍了目前解决这些问题的方法后,我们利用世界价值观调查的数据来说明欧洲和美国的主要社会断层对自我健康评估的影响:研究局限性/影响:研究局限性/意义:我们的分析涉及的国家数量有限,并且依赖于一种健康衡量标准:论文的原创性/价值:本文是研究议程的第一步,旨在了解社会内部和社会之间的健康不平等现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health and Health Care Inequities, Infectious Diseases and Social Factors Trends in Health Disparities of Rural Latinos Pre- and Post-Accountable Care Organization Implementation. Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Other Social Characteristics as Factors in Health and Health Care Disparities Prelims Index
×
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