Research findings suggest that older adults prefer counseling for depression treatment; however, few older adults use counseling services. In this article we present the results of our analysis of semistructured interviews with 102 older adults to explore conceptualizations of counseling and impediments to use among African American and White older adults. We found that older adults believe counseling is beneficial; however, use was hindered in multiple ways. Older adults were skeptical about establishing a caring relationship with a professional. African American older adults did not mention social relationships to facilitate depression care, whereas White older adults described using personal relationships to navigate counseling services. African American older men were least familiar with counseling. Our findings suggest that African American and White older adults share a strong cultural model of counseling as beneficial; however, significant impediments exist and affect older adults differentially based on ethnicity.
Past research has suggested that patients might not accept depression treatment in part because of differences between patient and doctor understandings of depression. In this article, we use a cultural models approach to explore how older adults incorporate clinical and experiential knowledge into their model of depression. We conducted semistructured interviews about depression with 19 patients aged 65 years and older who were identified by their physicians as depressed. We found that whereas older adults viewed as helpful the doctor's ability to identify symptoms and "put it all together" into a diagnosis, they felt that this viewpoint omitted important information about the etiology and feeling of depression grounded in embodied experience and social context. Our findings suggest that more emphasis on issues related to the etiology of depression, the effect of depression on social relationships, and emotions emanating from depression might lead to more acceptable depression treatments for older adults.
Research on community responses to environmental toxicity has richly described the struggles of citizens to identify unrecognized toxins, collect their own environmental health facts, and use them to lobby authorities for recognition and remediation. Much of this literature is based on an empiricist premise: it is concerned with exploring differences in how laypeople and experts perceive what is presumed to be a singular toxic reality that preexists these varying perspectives. Here, we seek to reexamine this topic by shifting the focus from facts to facticity—that is, by exploring the many types of knowledge that communities develop about toxicity and how these knowledges articulate with the ideas of scientific and governmental authorities about what kinds of information are valid bases for policymaking. In making this shift, we are influenced by work in semiotic anthropology and science and technology studies (STS), which emphasizes that lived experience generates distinct realities rather than different perceptions of the same underlying state. Using this framework, we present an analysis of oral history interviews conducted in 2013–14 in the small American town of Ambler, Pennsylvania. Part of Ambler’s legacy as a nineteenth- and twentieth-century center of asbestos manufacture is that it is home to two massive asbestos-containing waste sites, one of which was being remediated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the time of this study. Our interviews demonstrate that even asbestos, a toxin with a well-established public narrative, is a fundamentally different object for different members of the Ambler community. For many of these individuals, the epistemology and practices of the EPA are incongruent with or tangential to their toxicity-related experiences and their consequent concerns for the future. As such, our findings suggest caution in framing the community engagement efforts of environmental health agencies primarily as facilitations of citizen science; this approach does not acknowledge the multiplicity of toxic realities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.