Intersectionality as a theoretical framework for researching health inequities in chronic pain.

IF 1.3 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
British Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-09 DOI:10.1177/20494637231188583
Cassandra Macgregor, Jackie Walumbe, Emmanuelle Tulle, Christopher Seenan, David N Blane
{"title":"Intersectionality as a theoretical framework for researching health inequities in chronic pain.","authors":"Cassandra Macgregor, Jackie Walumbe, Emmanuelle Tulle, Christopher Seenan, David N Blane","doi":"10.1177/20494637231188583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chronic pain is experienced unequally by different population groups; we outline examples from the pain literature of inequities related to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic and migration status. Health inequities are systematic, avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes between groups of people, with the fundamental 'causes of causes' recognised as unequal distribution of income, power and wealth. Intersectionality can add further theory to health inequities literature; collective social identities including class/socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, migration status, age, sexuality and disabled status intersect in multiple interconnected systems of power leading to differing experiences of privilege and oppression which can be understood as axes of health inequities. The process of knowledge creation in pain research is shaped by these interconnected systems of power, and may perpetuate inequities in pain care as it is largely based on majority white, middle class, Eurocentric populations. Intersectionality can inform research epistemology (ways of knowing), priorities, methodology and methods. We give examples from the literature where intersectionality has informed a justice oriented approach across different research methods and we offer suggestions for further development. The use of a reductionist frame can force unachievable objectivity on to complex health concepts, and we note increasing realisation in the field of the need to understand the individuals within their social world, and recognise the fluid and contextual nature of this.</p>","PeriodicalId":46585,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10722103/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637231188583","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic pain is experienced unequally by different population groups; we outline examples from the pain literature of inequities related to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic and migration status. Health inequities are systematic, avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes between groups of people, with the fundamental 'causes of causes' recognised as unequal distribution of income, power and wealth. Intersectionality can add further theory to health inequities literature; collective social identities including class/socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, migration status, age, sexuality and disabled status intersect in multiple interconnected systems of power leading to differing experiences of privilege and oppression which can be understood as axes of health inequities. The process of knowledge creation in pain research is shaped by these interconnected systems of power, and may perpetuate inequities in pain care as it is largely based on majority white, middle class, Eurocentric populations. Intersectionality can inform research epistemology (ways of knowing), priorities, methodology and methods. We give examples from the literature where intersectionality has informed a justice oriented approach across different research methods and we offer suggestions for further development. The use of a reductionist frame can force unachievable objectivity on to complex health concepts, and we note increasing realisation in the field of the need to understand the individuals within their social world, and recognise the fluid and contextual nature of this.

交叉性作为研究慢性疼痛健康不平等的理论框架
不同人群对慢性疼痛的体验是不平等的;我们概述了与性别、种族、社会经济和移民身份有关的不平等的痛苦文献中的例子。卫生不平等是指不同人群之间在卫生结果方面存在系统性、可避免和不公平的差异,其根本的“原因之因”被认为是收入、权力和财富的不平等分配。交叉性可以为卫生不平等文献增加进一步的理论;集体社会身份,包括阶级/社会经济地位、种族/民族、性别、移民身份、年龄、性取向和残疾状况,在多个相互关联的权力系统中相互交叉,导致特权和压迫的不同经历,这些经历可以被理解为卫生不平等的轴线。疼痛研究中的知识创造过程是由这些相互关联的权力系统塑造的,并且可能使疼痛护理中的不平等永久化,因为它主要基于大多数白人,中产阶级,以欧洲为中心的人口。交叉性可以为研究认识论(认识的方式)、优先级、方法论和方法提供信息。我们从文献中给出了一些例子,其中交叉性在不同的研究方法中为正义导向的方法提供了信息,并为进一步发展提供了建议。使用还原主义框架可能会将无法实现的客观性强加于复杂的健康概念上,我们注意到,该领域越来越多地认识到,需要了解其社会世界中的个人,并认识到这种情况的流动性和情境性。
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
British Journal of Pain
British Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: British Journal of Pain is a peer-reviewed quarterly British journal with an international multidisciplinary Editorial Board. The journal publishes original research and reviews on all major aspects of pain and pain management. Reviews reflect the body of evidence of the topic and are suitable for a multidisciplinary readership. Where empirical evidence is lacking, the reviews reflect the generally held opinions of experts in the field. The Journal has broadened its scope and has become a forum for publishing primary research together with brief reports related to pain and pain interventions. Submissions from all over the world have been published and are welcome. Official journal of the British Pain Society.
×
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