4.7 Article

Structural competency: Theorizing a new medical engagement with stigma and inequality

Journal

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
Volume 103, Issue -, Pages 126-133

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.032

Keywords

Stigma; Cultural competency; Medical education; Social determinates of health

Funding

  1. NSF Science and Society Program [1137717]
  2. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1137717] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes a shift in medical education away from pedagogic approaches to stigma and inequalities that emphasize cross-cultural understandings of individual patients, toward attention to forces that influence health outcomes at levels above individual interactions. It reviews existing structural approaches to stigma and health inequalities developed outside of medicine, and proposes changes to U.S. medical education that will infuse clinical training with a structural focus. The approach, termed structural competency, consists of training in five core competencies: 1) recognizing the structures that shape clinical interactions; 2) developing an extra-clinical language of structure; 3) rearticulating cultural formulations in structural terms; 4) observing and imagining structural interventions; and 5) developing structural humility. Examples are provided of structural health scholarship that should be adopted into medical didactic curricula, and of structural interventions that can provide participant-observation opportunities for clinical trainees. The paper ultimately argues that increasing recognition of the ways in which social and economic forces produce symptoms or methylate genes then needs to be better coupled with medical models for structural change. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available