4.7 Article

Beyond a catalogue of differences: A theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 74, 期 11, 页码 1817-1824

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.033

关键词

Sex differences; Gender differences; Gender and health; Gender; Health; Institute of medicine report; Biosocial; Sex/gender

资金

  1. Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research at Rutgers
  2. Robert Wood Johnson Health & Society at Columbia University
  3. Foundation For Worker Veteran & Environmental Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extensive medical, public health, and social science research have focused on cataloguing male female differences in human health. Unfortunately, much of this research unscientifically and unquestionably attributes these differences to biological causes - as exemplified in the Institute of Medicine's conclusion that every cell has a sex. In this manuscript we theorize the entanglement of sex and gender in human health research and articulate good practice guidelines for assessing the role of biological processes - along with social and biosocial processes - in the production of non-reproductive health differences between and among men and women. There are two basic tenets underlying this project. The first is that sex itself is not a biological mechanism and the second is that sex and gender are entangled, and analyses should proceed by assuming that measures of sex are not pristine, but include effects of gender. Building from these tenets - and using cardiovascular disease as a consistent example - we articulate a process that scientists and researchers can use to seriously and systematically assess the role of biology and social environment in the production of health among men and women. We hope that this intervention will be one further step toward understanding the complexity and nuance of health outcomes, and that this increased knowledge can be used to improve human health. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据