Understanding lay perspectives on socioeconomic health inequalities in Britain: a meta‐ethnography

Abstract

The links between socioeconomic circumstances and health have been extensively studied in Britain but surprisingly few studies consider lay perspectives. This is problematic given popular efforts to reduce health inequalities appear to be based on assumption that public understanding is limited (this is evident in efforts to raise awareness of both 'upstream' causes of health inequalities and healthdamaging behaviours). The results of this meta-ethnography, involving 17 qualitative studies, fundamentally challenge this assumption. We show, first, that people who are living with socioeconomic disadvantage already have a good understanding of the links between socioeconomic hardship and ill-health. Indeed, participants' accounts closely mirror the research consensus that material-structural factors represent 'upstream' determinants of health, while 'psychosocial' factors provide important explanatory pathways connecting material circumstances to health outcomes. Despite this, people living in disadvantaged circumstances are often reluctant to explicitly acknowledge health inequalities, a finding that we suggest can be understood as an attempt to resist the stigma and shame of poverty and poor health and to (re)assert individual agency and control. This suggests that work to increase public awareness of health inequalities may unintentionally exacerbate experiences of stigma and shame, meaning alternative approaches to engaging communities in health inequalities discussions are required.

Unemployment, sanctions and mental health: the relationship between benefit sanctions and antidepressant prescribing

“…Unemployment is itself associated with poor mental health, which has been explained through a combination of both material and psychosocial pathways (Sage, 2018); material factors are concerned with financial impacts, whilst psychosocial considerations attend to the experience of unemployment and how it is shaped by social structures. Material factors can be understood as central determinants with psychosocial factors providing an explanatory pathway that connects material circumstances to health outcomes (Smith and Anderson, 2018). Indeed, a growing body of research investigates how financial stress gets 'under the skin' (Sturgeon et al, 2016: 134) of individuals to impact their mental health, which is considered a psychosocial explanation despite its direct relationship to material concerns.…”

The elephant in the room? Why spatial stigma does not receive the public health attention it deserves

“…Thirdly, there is the possibility that public health organisations may be exacerbating spatial stigma, 40 including in the ways that health inequalities are publicly communicated. 41 Take, for example, the Royal Society for Public Health's (RSPH) reimagining of Hogarth's Gin Lane in 2016. Aiming to raise awareness of the 'public health challenges' of British society during the RSPH 160 th anniversary, the commissioned image was intended as 'representative of a typical street scene in London, or indeed anywhere in the UK today.'…”

Using meta‐ethnography to develop a conceptual model of peer‐assisted learning of nursing students in clinical practice

“…First‐order constructs depict the participant's interpretation in their own words, whereby second‐order constructs relate to interpretations of the researcher based on the data. First‐order constructs often only present a limited amount of original data, which in previous attempts has created difficulties to distinguish between first‐ and second‐order constructs and use these in the process (Smith & Anderson, ). Therefore, the aim of meta‐ethnography focuses on the data in second‐order constructs to synthesize and develop the researcher's interpretation of the original interpretations, or third‐order constructs (Britten et al, ).…”

“…Toye et al (2013), in their analysis of meta-ethnography, discussed how these concepts can be broken down into an order of constructs. First-order constructs depict the participant's TA B L E 1 Noblit and Hare's (1988) data, which in previous attempts has created difficulties to distinguish between first-and second-order constructs and use these in the process (Smith & Anderson, 2018). Therefore, the aim of metaethnography focuses on the data in second-order constructs to synthesize and develop the researcher's interpretation of the original interpretations, or third-order constructs (Britten et al, 2002).…”