4.4 Review

Disparities at the intersection of marginalized groups

Journal

SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 10, Pages 1349-1359

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-016-1276-6

Keywords

Disparities; Intersectionality; Interaction; Decomposition; Relative excess risk for interaction; Synergy index; Attributable proportion; Ratio of observed to expected joint effects; Joint disparity; Excess intersectional disparity; Heterogeneity of effects

Categories

Funding

  1. Alonzo Smythe Yerby Fellowship
  2. National Institutes of health [ES017876, 5PC0CA148596-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mental health disparities exist across several dimensions of social inequality, including race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and gender. Most investigations of health disparities focus on one dimension. Recent calls by researchers argue for studying persons who are marginalized in multiple ways, often from the perspective of intersectionality, a theoretical framework applied to qualitative studies in law, sociology, and psychology. Quantitative adaptations are emerging but there is little guidance as to what measures or methods are helpful. Here, we consider the concept of a joint disparity and its composition, show that this approach can illuminate how outcomes are patterned for social groups that are marginalized across multiple axes of social inequality, and compare the insights gained with that of other measures of additive interaction. We apply these methods to a cohort of young men from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, examining disparities for black men with low early life SES vs. white men with high early life SES across several outcomes that predict mental health, including unemployment, wages, and incarceration. We report striking disparities in each outcome, but show that the contribution of race, SES, and their intersection varies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available