Intersectionality-Informed Sex/Gender-Sensitivity in Public Health Monitoring and Reporting (PHMR): A Case Study Assessing Stratification on an “Intersectional Gender-Score”

To date, PHMR has often relied on male/female stratification, but rarely considers the complex, intersecting social positions of men and women in describing the prevalence of health and disease. Stratification on an Intersectional Gender-Score (IG-Score), which is based on a variety of social covariables, would allow comparison of the prevalence of individuals who share the same complex intersectional profile (IG-Score). The cross-sectional case study was based on the German Socio-Economic Panel 2017 (n = 23,269 age 18+). After stratification, covariable-balance within the total sample and IG-Score-subgroups was assessed by standardized mean differences. Prevalence of self-rated health, mental distress, depression and hypertension was compared in men and women. In the IG-Score-subgroup with highest proportion of males and lowest probability of falling into the ‘woman’-category, most individuals were in full-time employment. The IG-Score-subgroup with highest proportion of women and highest probability of falling into the ‘woman’-category was characterized by part-time/occasional employment, housewife/-husband, and maternity/parental leave. Gender differences in prevalence of health indicators remained within the male-dominated IG-Score-subgroup, whereas the same prevalence of depression and self-rated health was observed for men and women constituting the female-dominated IG-Score-subgroup. These results might indicate that sex/gender differences of depression and self-rated health could be interpreted against the background of gender associated processes. In summary, the proposed procedure allows comparison of prevalence of health indicators conditional on men and women sharing the same complex intersectional profile

Investigating people’s attitudes towards participating in longitudinal health research: an intersectionality-informed perspective

Abstract Background Increasing evidence suggests that participation proportions in longitudinal health research vary according to sex/gender, age, social class, or migration status. Intersectionality scholarship purports that such social categories cannot be understood in isolation and makes visible the co-dependent nature of the social determinants of health and illness. This paper uses an intersectionality-informed approach in order to expand the understanding of why people participate in health research, and the impact of intersecting social structures and experiences on these attitudes. Methods A sample of 80 respondents who had previously either accepted or declined an invitation to participate in the German National Cohort (NAKO) participated in our interview study. Interviews were semi-structured and contained both narrative elements and more structured probes. Data analysis proceeded in two steps: first, the entire data set was analysed thematically (separately for participants and non-participants); second, key themes were compared across self-reported sex/gender, age group and migration status to identify differences and commonalities. Results Respondents’ attitudes towards study participation can be categorised into four themes: wanting to make a contribution, seeking personalised health information, excitement and feeling chosen, and seeking social recognition. Besides citing logistical challenges, non-participants narrated adverse experiences with or attitudes towards science and the healthcare system that deterred them from participating. A range of social experiences and cultural value systems shaped such attitudes; in particular, this includes the cultural authority of science as an arbiter of social questions, transgressing social categories and experiences of marginalisation. Care responsibilities, predominantly borne by female respondents, also impacted upon the decision to take part in NAKO. Discussion Our findings suggest that for participants, health research constitutes a site of distinction in the sense of making a difference and being distinct or distinguishable, whereas non-participants inhabited an orientation towards science that reflected their subjective marginalisation through science. No clear relationship can thereby be presumed between social location and a particular attitude towards study participation; rather, such attitudes transgress and challenge categorical boundaries. This challenges the understanding of particular populations as more or less disadvantaged, or as more or less inclined to participate in health research