Journal of Health and Social Behavior最新文献

In early 2020, when COVID-19 began to spread in the United States, many Twitter users called it the "Chinese virus," blaming racial outgroups for the pandemic. I collected tweets containing the "Chinese virus" derivatives posted from March to August 2020 by users within the United States and created a data set with 141,290 tweets published by 50,695 users. I calculated the ratio of users who supported the racist naming of COVID-19 per county and merged Twitter data with the county-level census. Multilevel regression models show that counties with higher COVID-19 mortality or infection rates have more support for the racist naming. Second, the mortality and infection rates effects are stronger in counties with faster minority growth. Moreover, it is mainly in poor counties that minority growth enlarges the effects of infection and mortality rates. These findings relate to the theories on disease-induced xenophobia and the debate between conflict and contact theories.

Republicans and conservatives report better self-rated health and well-being compared to Democrats and liberals, yet they are more likely to reside in geographic areas with heavy COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. This harmed health on "both sides" of political divides, occurring in a time of rapid sociopolitical upheaval, warrants the revisiting of psychosocial mechanisms linked to political health differences. Drawing on national Gallup data (early 2021), we find that predicted differences in health or well-being vary substantially by ideology, party, voting behavior, and policy beliefs, with model fit depending on how politics are measured. Differences in self-rated health, psychological distress, happiness, trouble sleeping, and delayed health care tend to reveal worse outcomes for Democrats or liberals. Such differences often are reduced to insignificance by some combination of mastery, meritocratic beliefs, perceived social support, and COVID-19-related exposures and attitudes. Policy beliefs predict health differences most robustly across outcomes and mechanism adjustments.

An expansive and methodologically varied literature designed to investigate racial disparities in health now exists. Empirical evidence points to an overlapping, complex web of social conditions that accelerate the pace of aging and erodes long-term health outcomes among people of color, especially Black Americans. However, a social exposure-or lack thereof-that is rarely mentioned is time use. The current paper was specifically designed to address this shortcoming. First, we draw on extant research to illustrate how and why time is a critical source of racial disparities in health. Second, we employ fundamental causes theory to explain the specific mechanisms through which the differential distribution of time across race is likely to give rise to unequal health outcomes. Finally, we introduce a novel conceptual framework that identifies and distinguishes between four distinct forms of time use likely to play an outsized role in contributing to racial disparities in health.

Health care research has long overlooked the intersection of multiple social inequalities. This study examines influenza vaccination inequities at the intersection of sexuality, gender, and race-ethnicity. Using data from the 2013 to 2018 National Health Interview Survey (N = 166,908), the study shows that sexual, gender, and racial-ethnic identities jointly shaped flu vaccination. Specifically, White gay men had the highest vaccination rate (56%), while Black bisexual women had the lowest rate (23%). Across Black, Hispanic, and White individuals, sexual minority women had lower vaccination rates than heterosexual women, but sexual minority men had higher or similar vaccination rates than heterosexual men. Economic enabling, noneconomic enabling, and need-based factors together explained a substantial portion of these gaps. However, they cannot explain all the disadvantages faced by Black lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women and Black heterosexual men. Findings offer new evidence of hidden health care inequities and inform health policies from an intersectional perspective.

Recent scientific and policy initiatives frame clinical settings as sites for intervening upon inequality. Electronic health records and data analytic technologies offer opportunity to record standard data on education, employment, social support, and race-ethnicity, and numerous audiences expect biomedicine to redress social determinants based on newly available data. However, little is known on how health practitioners and institutional actors view data standardization in relation to inequity. This article examines a public safety-net health system's expansion of race, ethnicity, and language data collection, drawing on 10 months of ethnographic fieldwork and 32 qualitative interviews with providers, clinic staff, data scientists, and administrators. Findings suggest that electronic data capture institutes a decontextualized racialization within biomedicine as health practitioners and data workers rely on biological, cultural, and social justifications for collecting racial data. This demonstrates a critical paradox of stratified biomedicalization: The same data-centered interventions expected to redress injustice may ultimately reinscribe it.

In pediatric medical visits, parents may assume the role of co-caregiver with clinicians. At times, parents challenge physicians' authority to determine diagnoses and treatments for their children. The present study uses conversation analysis to examine parents' accounts for their intrusions on medical authority in a corpus of 35 video-recorded pediatric neurology visits for overnight video-electroencephalogram monitoring. I show how parents can exploit their legitimate role as carers to challenge medical authority. Through invoking uncertainty in contexts where they have somehow challenged medical authority, parents can account for their conduct in ways that elide direct conflict with physicians and thereby minimize damage to the physician-family partnership.

Emerging research documents the health benefits of having highly educated adult offspring. Yet less is known about whether those advantages vary across racial groups. This study examines how offspring education is tied to parents' dementia risk for Black and White parents in the United States. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study, findings suggest that children's education does not account for the Black-White gap in dementia risk. However, results confirm that parental race moderates the relationship between children's education and dementia risk and that the association between children's education and parents' dementia risk is strongest among less-educated parents. Among less-educated parents, higher levels of children's attainment prevent the risk of dementia onset for Black parents, but low levels of offspring schooling increase dementia risk among White parents. The study highlights how offspring education shapes the cognitive health of social groups differently and points to new avenues for future research.

Research has consistently linked discrimination and poorer health; however, fewer studies have focused on immigration-related discrimination and mental health outcomes. Drawing on quantitative surveys (N = 1,131) and qualitative interviews (N = 63) with Latino undergraduate students who are undocumented or U.S. citizens with undocumented parents, we examine the association between perceived immigration-related discrimination and mental health outcomes and the process through which they are linked. Regression analyses identify an association between immigration-related discrimination and increased levels of depression and anxiety; this relationship did not vary by self and parental immigration status. Interview data shed light on this result as immigration-related discrimination manifested as individual discrimination as well as vicarious discrimination through family and community members. We contend that immigration-related discrimination is not limited to individual experiences but rather is shared within the family and community, with negative implications for the mental health of undocumented immigrants and mixed-status family members.

New evidence on a classic sociological debate allows for a test of the consequences of self-labeling with mental illness. While a medicalized "insight" perspective emphasizes the importance of self-labeling for psychological well-being and recovery, a sociologically informed "outsight" perspective draws from modified labeling, self-labeling, and stigma resistance theories to suggest that self-labeling can generate negative consequences for self-esteem. We engage this debate by examining the effects of mental illness self-labels on a crucial component of psychological well-being for persons with mental health problems-self-esteem-by using longitudinal data that followed 427 sixth-grade youth over two years. Our findings support an outsight perspective whereby adopting a self-label led to decreased self-esteem, while those who dropped a self-label experienced increased self-esteem. This conclusion calls for revisions to prevailing public mental health models that overlook how self-labels can impede rather than enhance psychological well-being and recovery efforts.