Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,620

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: Challenges and the potential to advance health equity

Open access
Bauer, Greta R.·2014·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Intersectionality theory, developed to address the non-additivity of effects of sex/gender and race/ethnicity but extendable to other domains, allows for the potential to study health and disease at different intersections of identity, social position, processes of oppression or privilege, and policies or institutional practices. Intersectionality has the potential to enrich population health research through improved validity and greater attention to both heterogeneity of effects and causal processes producing health inequalities. Moreover, intersectional population health research may serve to both test and generate new theories. Nevertheless, its implementation within health research to date has been primarily through qualitative research. In this paper, challenges to incorporation of intersectionality into population health research are identified or expanded upon. These include: 1) confusion of quantitative terms used metaphorically in theoretical work with similar-sounding statistical methods; 2) the question of whether all intersectional positions are of equal value, or even of sufficient value for study; 3) distinguishing between intersecting identities, social positions, processes, and policies or other structural factors; 4) reflecting embodiment in how processes of oppression and privilege are measured and analysed; 5) understanding and utilizing appropriate scale for interactions in regression models; 6) structuring interaction or risk modification to best convey effects, and; 7) avoiding assumptions of equidistance or single level in the design of analyses. Addressing these challenges throughout the processes of conceptualizing and planning research and in conducting analyses has the potential to improve researchers' ability to more specifically document inequalities at varying intersectional positions, and to study the potential individual- and group-level causes that may drive these observed inequalities. A greater and more thoughtful incorporation of intersectionality can promote the creation of evidence that is directly useful in population-level interventions such as policy changes, or that is specific enough to be applicable within the social contexts of affected communities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.022

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bauer, G. R.
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
110
Pages
10-17
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.022
OpenAlex
W2020682310
Cited by
1,620
References
16
FWCI
162.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.