Recent analyses of responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have posited that men’s dismissive attitudes toward the risks of the virus reflect their attempts to conform to masculine norms that valorize bravery and strength. In this article, the authors develop an alternative account of the gender differences in attitudes toward COVID-19. Drawing on three waves of in-depth interviews with college students and members of their households ( n = 45) over a period of 16 weeks (for a total of 120 interviews), the authors find that men and women in comparable circumstances perceive similar risks of COVID-19, but they diverge in their attitudes toward, and responses to, these risks. Connecting scholarship on gender and care work with research on risk, the authors argue that gender differences in attitudes toward risk are influenced by the unique and strenuous care work responsibilities generated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which are borne primarily by women—and from which men are exempt.
PurposeState Health Agencies (SHAs) have developed public health genomics
(PHG) programs that play an instrumental role in advancing precision public
health, but there is limited research on their approaches. This study
examines how PHG programs attempt to mitigate or forestall health
disparities and inequities in the utilization of genomic medicine.MethodsWe compared PHG programs in three states: Connecticut, Michigan, and
Utah. We analyzed 85 in-depth interviews with SHA internal and external
collaborators and program documents. We employed a qualitative coding
process to capture themes relating to health disparities and inequities.ResultsEach SHA implemented population-level approaches to identify
individuals who carry genetic variants that increase risk of hereditary
cancers. However, each SHA developed a unique strategy—which we
label public health action repertoires—to reach specific subgroups
who faced barriers in accessing genetic services. These strategies varied
across states given demographics of the state population, state-level
partnerships, and availability of healthcare services.ConclusionOur findings illustrate the imperative of tailoring PHG programs to
local demographic characteristics and existing community resources.
Furthermore, our study highlights how integrating genomics into precision
public health will require multilevel, multisector collaboration to optimize
efficacy and equity.
In the past decade, healthcare delivery has faced two major disruptions: the mapping of the human genome and the rise of evidence-based practice. Sociologists have documented the paradigmatic shift towards evidence-based practice in medicine, but have yet to examine its effect on other health professions or the broader healthcare arena. This article shows how evidence-based practice is transforming public health in the United States. We present an in-depth qualitative analysis of interview, ethnographic, and archival data to show how Michigan's state public health agency has navigated the turn to evidence-based practice, as they have integrated scientific advances in genomics into their chronic disease prevention programming. Drawing on organizational theory, we demonstrate how they managed ambiguity through a combination of sensegiving and sensemaking activities. Specifically, they linked novel developments in genomics to a long-accepted public health planning model, the Core Public Health Functions. This made cutting edge advances in genomics more familiar to their peers in the state health agency. They also marshaled state-specific surveillance data to illustrate the public health burden of hereditary cancers in Michigan, and to make expert panel recommendations for genetic screening more locally relevant. Finally, they mobilized expertise to help their internal colleagues and external partners modernize conventional public health activities in chronic disease prevention. Our findings show that tools and concepts from organizational sociology can help medical sociologists understand how evidence-based practice is shaping institutions and interprofessional relations in the healthcare arena.
How does belief in controversial ideas persist? I study a community of parents and practitioners who contend that autism spectrum disorder is caused by harmful environmental exposures – notably, early childhood vaccinations – and that there are worthwhile alternative or experimental treatments. Despite objections from dominant experts, these actors maintain their disputed ideas. This study identifies a set of strategies that help maintain internal legitimacy. In particular, actors protect internal legitimacy through professional alignment and contrastive boundary work. Professional alignment mobilizes resemblances to conventional counterparts (i.e. mainstream doctors) to defend unorthodox practices. Meanwhile, contrastive boundary-work performances convey the defining values and strengths that actors associate with their knowledge community and concomitantly, the weaknesses they ascribe to competing groups. Through these activities, actors respond to perceived threats and construct a distinct group identity anchored in shared knowledge, ways of knowing and practice.
The majority of the world population is lactose intolerant, as 65%-70% of people lose the enzymes to digest lactose after infancy. Yet, in the United States, where lactose intolerance is predicted to affect only 36% of people, this phenomenon is often framed as a deficiency as opposed to the norm. This is because the United States has a higher prevalence of people who are lactase persistent. Lactase persistence is a genetic trait most common among Europeans and some African, Middle Eastern and southern Asian groups with a history of animal domestication and milk consumption. In this study, we take the case of lactose intolerance to examine how popular media maintains biocentric biases. Analysing relevant articles published in The New York Times and Scientific American between 1971 and 2020, we document how ideas about milk, health and race evolve over time. Over this fifty-year period, writers shifted from framing lactose intolerance as racial difference to lactase persistence as evolutionary genetics. Yet, articles on the osteoporosis 'epidemic' and vitamin D deficiency worked to perpetuate lactose intolerance as a health concern and standardise the dairy-heavy American diet.Studying media portrayals of lactose intolerance and lactase persistence, we argue that popular discourses normalise biocentric biases through messages about eating behaviours and health.
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.