Admitting the heterogeneity of social inequalities: intersectionality as a (self-)critical framework and tool within mental health care.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Florian Funer
{"title":"Admitting the heterogeneity of social inequalities: intersectionality as a (self-)critical framework and tool within mental health care.","authors":"Florian Funer","doi":"10.1186/s13010-023-00144-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inequities shape the everyday experiences and life chances of individuals at the margins of societies and are often associated with lower health and particular challenges in accessing quality treatment and support. This fact is even more dramatic for those individuals who live at the nexus of different marginalized groups and thus may face multiple discrimination, stigma, and oppression. To address these multiple social and structural disadvantages, intersectional approaches have recently gained a foothold, especially in the public health field. This study makes an empirically informed argument for the merits of increasing the use of intersectional frameworks in the mental health field. In the mental health field, the potential for greater attention to multiple unjustified disadvantages appears to be of particular importance, as many mental health service users already face stigma and discrimination because of their mental health issues and thus may benefit particularly frequently and far-reachingly from effective problem awareness about multiple disadvantages. Intersectional approaches may help address the complexity, interdependence, and mutual constitution of social inequalities better than previous approaches that examined only one category of sociostructural stratification. By helping to identify the needs of those at the greatest risk of poor health, intersectional frameworks and tools can contribute not only to better address the needs of multiple disadvantaged individuals with mental health issues but also to the promotion of equity in the field of mental health, contributing to the reduction of health disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":56062,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","volume":"18 1","pages":"21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10668443/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-023-00144-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inequities shape the everyday experiences and life chances of individuals at the margins of societies and are often associated with lower health and particular challenges in accessing quality treatment and support. This fact is even more dramatic for those individuals who live at the nexus of different marginalized groups and thus may face multiple discrimination, stigma, and oppression. To address these multiple social and structural disadvantages, intersectional approaches have recently gained a foothold, especially in the public health field. This study makes an empirically informed argument for the merits of increasing the use of intersectional frameworks in the mental health field. In the mental health field, the potential for greater attention to multiple unjustified disadvantages appears to be of particular importance, as many mental health service users already face stigma and discrimination because of their mental health issues and thus may benefit particularly frequently and far-reachingly from effective problem awareness about multiple disadvantages. Intersectional approaches may help address the complexity, interdependence, and mutual constitution of social inequalities better than previous approaches that examined only one category of sociostructural stratification. By helping to identify the needs of those at the greatest risk of poor health, intersectional frameworks and tools can contribute not only to better address the needs of multiple disadvantaged individuals with mental health issues but also to the promotion of equity in the field of mental health, contributing to the reduction of health disparities.

承认社会不平等的异质性:交叉性作为精神卫生保健的(自我)关键框架和工具。
不平等影响着社会边缘个人的日常经历和生活机会,往往与健康状况较差以及在获得优质治疗和支持方面面临的特殊挑战有关。对于那些生活在不同边缘群体之间、因而可能面临多重歧视、污名化和压迫的个人来说,这一事实更为严重。为了解决这些社会和结构上的多重不利因素,交叉方法最近获得了立足点,特别是在公共卫生领域。本研究为在心理健康领域增加使用交叉框架的优点提供了一个经验信息论证。在精神卫生领域,更多地关注多种不合理的不利条件似乎具有特别重要的潜力,因为许多精神卫生服务使用者已经因其精神卫生问题而面临耻辱和歧视,因此,对多种不利条件的有效问题认识可能特别频繁和深远地受益。交叉方法可能有助于解决社会不平等的复杂性、相互依赖性和相互构成,而不是以前只研究一类社会结构分层的方法。通过帮助确定那些健康状况最差的人的需求,交叉框架和工具不仅有助于更好地满足有心理健康问题的多个处境不利个人的需求,而且有助于促进心理健康领域的公平,有助于缩小健康差距。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine considers articles on the philosophy of medicine and biology, and on ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of the philosophy of medicine and biology, and the ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. It also considers papers at the intersection of medicine and humanities, including the history of medicine, that are relevant to contemporary philosophy of medicine and bioethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is the official publication of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信