{"title":"注意“不平等”差距:对全球卫生和保健工作者的不平等和不良经历进行交叉性知情的范围审查。","authors":"Roomi Aziz, Anuj Kapilashrami, Reza Majdzadeh","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Health and care workers' well-being is critical for comprehensive human resources for health (HRH) planning. However, system-wide factors such as wage disparities and career advancement barriers remain underexplored, while most existing planning frameworks focus on gender, ignoring other interactions shaping the HRH experiences.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically map literature on adverse HRH experiences, underlying inequalities and the resulting impact using an intersectional equity lens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A rigorous scoping protocol was developed which guided the search in four bibliographic databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed and CINAHL Ultimate). Literature was screened by two reviewers independently, charted and thematically analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 21 184 records, 511 articles were included. 76% of the excluded articles were duplicates, while the rest were ineligible (non-English, grey literature, irrelevant publication type, etc). The review unpacked six types of adverse experiences (invisibilisation, disproportionate scrutiny, denial of opportunities, verbal abuse, physical abuse and sexual harassment) across 72 countries. 20 social locations, such as gender, race, ethnicity, cadre and their interactions shaped these experiences.55% of these studies were based in high-income countries and only 2% in low-income countries. 45% of articles studied these experiences across only two or more social locations, with the most common combinations being race-sex. Adverse manifestations included wage disparities, career advancement barriers, poor mental health and high turnover. The existing literature lacked an equity gaze, missing the underlying systematic drivers and rarely exploring intersecting unique positionalities of health and care workers.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Using an intersectionality lens, this scoping review identifies three key gaps: regional evidence imbalances, lack of an explicit intersectional equity focus and absence of translation of the scant intersectional evidence into HRH policy tools. These gaps restrict global HRH planning and hinder the development of inclusive, context-specific strategies-especially in low- and middle-income countries facing the most severe workforce challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12352149/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mind the 'inequality' gap: intersectionality-informed scoping review of inequalities and adverse experiences of health and care workers globally.\",\"authors\":\"Roomi Aziz, Anuj Kapilashrami, Reza Majdzadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Health and care workers' well-being is critical for comprehensive human resources for health (HRH) planning. However, system-wide factors such as wage disparities and career advancement barriers remain underexplored, while most existing planning frameworks focus on gender, ignoring other interactions shaping the HRH experiences.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically map literature on adverse HRH experiences, underlying inequalities and the resulting impact using an intersectional equity lens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A rigorous scoping protocol was developed which guided the search in four bibliographic databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed and CINAHL Ultimate). Literature was screened by two reviewers independently, charted and thematically analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 21 184 records, 511 articles were included. 76% of the excluded articles were duplicates, while the rest were ineligible (non-English, grey literature, irrelevant publication type, etc). The review unpacked six types of adverse experiences (invisibilisation, disproportionate scrutiny, denial of opportunities, verbal abuse, physical abuse and sexual harassment) across 72 countries. 20 social locations, such as gender, race, ethnicity, cadre and their interactions shaped these experiences.55% of these studies were based in high-income countries and only 2% in low-income countries. 45% of articles studied these experiences across only two or more social locations, with the most common combinations being race-sex. Adverse manifestations included wage disparities, career advancement barriers, poor mental health and high turnover. The existing literature lacked an equity gaze, missing the underlying systematic drivers and rarely exploring intersecting unique positionalities of health and care workers.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Using an intersectionality lens, this scoping review identifies three key gaps: regional evidence imbalances, lack of an explicit intersectional equity focus and absence of translation of the scant intersectional evidence into HRH policy tools. These gaps restrict global HRH planning and hinder the development of inclusive, context-specific strategies-especially in low- and middle-income countries facing the most severe workforce challenges.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"volume\":\"10 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12352149/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016795\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016795","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:健康和护理工作者的福祉对于全面的卫生人力资源规划至关重要。然而,工资差距和职业晋升障碍等全系统因素仍未得到充分探讨,而大多数现有规划框架都侧重于性别,忽视了影响人力资源管理经验的其他相互作用。目的:使用交叉公平视角系统地绘制关于不良人力资源经验、潜在不平等和由此产生的影响的文献。方法:在SCOPUS、Web of Science、PubMed和CINAHL Ultimate四个文献数据库中制定了严格的范围界定协议。文献由两位独立的审稿人筛选,绘制图表并进行主题分析。结果:共纳入21 184篇文献511篇。被排除的文章中有76%是重复的,其余的不符合条件(非英语、灰色文献、不相关的出版类型等)。该审查揭示了72个国家的六种不良经历(不被关注、过度审查、拒绝机会、言语虐待、身体虐待和性骚扰)。20个社会位置,如性别、种族、民族、干部及其相互作用,塑造了这些经历。这些研究中55%是基于高收入国家,只有2%是基于低收入国家。45%的文章只在两个或两个以上的社会场所研究了这些经历,最常见的组合是种族和性别。不利表现包括工资差距、职业晋升障碍、心理健康状况不佳和人员流动率高。现有文献缺乏公平的眼光,缺少潜在的系统驱动因素,很少探索卫生和护理工作者的交叉独特地位。影响:通过交叉视角,本范围审查确定了三个关键差距:区域证据不平衡、缺乏明确的交叉公平重点以及缺乏将少量交叉证据转化为人力资源政策工具。这些差距制约了全球人力资源规划,阻碍了包容性、因地制宜战略的制定,尤其是在面临最严峻劳动力挑战的低收入和中等收入国家。
Mind the 'inequality' gap: intersectionality-informed scoping review of inequalities and adverse experiences of health and care workers globally.
Context: Health and care workers' well-being is critical for comprehensive human resources for health (HRH) planning. However, system-wide factors such as wage disparities and career advancement barriers remain underexplored, while most existing planning frameworks focus on gender, ignoring other interactions shaping the HRH experiences.
Objective: To systematically map literature on adverse HRH experiences, underlying inequalities and the resulting impact using an intersectional equity lens.
Methods: A rigorous scoping protocol was developed which guided the search in four bibliographic databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed and CINAHL Ultimate). Literature was screened by two reviewers independently, charted and thematically analysed.
Results: From 21 184 records, 511 articles were included. 76% of the excluded articles were duplicates, while the rest were ineligible (non-English, grey literature, irrelevant publication type, etc). The review unpacked six types of adverse experiences (invisibilisation, disproportionate scrutiny, denial of opportunities, verbal abuse, physical abuse and sexual harassment) across 72 countries. 20 social locations, such as gender, race, ethnicity, cadre and their interactions shaped these experiences.55% of these studies were based in high-income countries and only 2% in low-income countries. 45% of articles studied these experiences across only two or more social locations, with the most common combinations being race-sex. Adverse manifestations included wage disparities, career advancement barriers, poor mental health and high turnover. The existing literature lacked an equity gaze, missing the underlying systematic drivers and rarely exploring intersecting unique positionalities of health and care workers.
Implications: Using an intersectionality lens, this scoping review identifies three key gaps: regional evidence imbalances, lack of an explicit intersectional equity focus and absence of translation of the scant intersectional evidence into HRH policy tools. These gaps restrict global HRH planning and hinder the development of inclusive, context-specific strategies-especially in low- and middle-income countries facing the most severe workforce challenges.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.