Investigating inconsistencies regarding health equity in select World Health Organization texts: a critical discourse analysis of health promotion, social determinants of health, and urban health texts, 2008-2016.

Michelle Amri, Theresa Enright, Patricia O'Campo, Erica Di Ruggiero, Arjumand Siddiqi, Jesse B Bump
{"title":"Investigating inconsistencies regarding health equity in select World Health Organization texts: a critical discourse analysis of health promotion, social determinants of health, and urban health texts, 2008-2016.","authors":"Michelle Amri, Theresa Enright, Patricia O'Campo, Erica Di Ruggiero, Arjumand Siddiqi, Jesse B Bump","doi":"10.1186/s44263-024-00106-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Scholarly critiques have demonstrated that the World Health Organization (WHO) approaches the concept of health equity inconsistently. For example, inconsistencies center around measuring health inequity across individuals versus groups; in approaches and goals sought in striving for health equity; and whether considerations around health equity prioritize socioeconomic status or also consider other social determinants of health. However, the significance of these contrasting approaches has yet to be assessed empirically.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employs critical discourse analysis to assess the WHO's approaches to health equity in select health promotion, social determinants of health, and urban health texts from 2008 to 2016.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We find that the WHO: (i) usually measures health equity by comparing groups; (ii) explicitly specifies three approaches to health equity (although we identified additional implicit approaches in our analysis of WHO discourses); and (iii) considers health equity inconsistently both in terms of socioeconomic status and other social determinants of health, but socioeconomic status was given substantially more attention than other individual social determinants of health.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is misalignment with the WHO's stated approaches to tackle health inequity and its discourses around health equity. This incongruence increases the likelihood of pursuing short-term solutions and not sustainably addressing the root causes of health inequity. Critical discourse analysis' focus on power allows for understanding why 'radical' approaches are not explicitly expressed to ensure that governments will be agreeable to addressing health inequity.</p>","PeriodicalId":519903,"journal":{"name":"BMC global and public health","volume":"2 1","pages":"81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11622997/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC global and public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44263-024-00106-w","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

Background: Scholarly critiques have demonstrated that the World Health Organization (WHO) approaches the concept of health equity inconsistently. For example, inconsistencies center around measuring health inequity across individuals versus groups; in approaches and goals sought in striving for health equity; and whether considerations around health equity prioritize socioeconomic status or also consider other social determinants of health. However, the significance of these contrasting approaches has yet to be assessed empirically.

Methods: This study employs critical discourse analysis to assess the WHO's approaches to health equity in select health promotion, social determinants of health, and urban health texts from 2008 to 2016.

Results: We find that the WHO: (i) usually measures health equity by comparing groups; (ii) explicitly specifies three approaches to health equity (although we identified additional implicit approaches in our analysis of WHO discourses); and (iii) considers health equity inconsistently both in terms of socioeconomic status and other social determinants of health, but socioeconomic status was given substantially more attention than other individual social determinants of health.

Conclusions: There is misalignment with the WHO's stated approaches to tackle health inequity and its discourses around health equity. This incongruence increases the likelihood of pursuing short-term solutions and not sustainably addressing the root causes of health inequity. Critical discourse analysis' focus on power allows for understanding why 'radical' approaches are not explicitly expressed to ensure that governments will be agreeable to addressing health inequity.

调查世界卫生组织部分文本在卫生公平方面的不一致之处:2008-2016 年对卫生促进、卫生的社会决定因素和城市卫生文本的批判性话语分析。
背景:学术评论表明,世界卫生组织(世卫组织)对待卫生公平概念的态度不一致。例如,不一致性集中在衡量个人与群体之间的健康不平等;在争取卫生公平的方法和目标方面;以及围绕卫生公平的考虑是否优先考虑社会经济地位,还是也考虑健康的其他社会决定因素。然而,这些对比方法的意义还有待经验评估。方法:本研究采用批判性话语分析来评估世卫组织在2008年至2016年选定的健康促进、健康的社会决定因素和城市卫生文本中实现健康公平的方法。结果:我们发现世界卫生组织:(i)通常通过比较群体来衡量卫生公平;(ii)明确规定了卫生公平的三种方法(尽管我们在对世卫组织话语的分析中发现了其他隐含方法);(三)在社会经济地位和健康的其他社会决定因素方面不一致地考虑健康公平,但社会经济地位比其他个人健康的社会决定因素得到了更多的关注。结论:世卫组织解决卫生不平等问题的方法及其围绕卫生公平的论述存在不一致。这种不一致增加了追求短期解决办法的可能性,而不是可持续地解决卫生不平等的根本原因。批判性话语分析将重点放在权力上,可以理解为什么没有明确表达“激进”方法,以确保政府同意解决卫生不平等问题。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信