Anna Månsdotter

Background: According to post-structural policy analyses, policies and interventions aiming at reducing social inequalities have been found to be part in producing and reifying such inequalities themselves. Given the central role of health inequalities on the public health policy agenda globally it seems important to examine the way policy on health inequalities may potentially counteract the goal of health equity. The aim of this intersectional policy analysis, was to critically analyze the representation of health inequalities in a government bill proposing a national strategy on alcohol, drugs, tobacco and gambling, to examine its performative power, and to outline alternative representations. Method: A post-structural approach to policy analysis was combined with an intersectional framework. The material was analyzed through an interrogating process guided by the six questions of the “What’s the problem represented to be?” (WPR) approach. Thus, the underlying assumptions of the problem representation, its potential implications and historical background were explored. In a final step of the analysis we examined our own problem representations. Results: The recommendations found in the gender and equity perspective of the bill represented the problem of health inequalities as a lack of knowledge, with an emphasis on quantitative knowledge about differences in health between population groups. Three underlying assumptions supporting this representation were found: quantification and objectivity, inequalities as unidimensional, and categorization and labelling. The analysis showed how the bill, by opting into these partly overlapping assumptions, is part of enacting a discourse on health inequalities that directs attention to specific subjects (e.g., vulnerable) with special needs (e.g., health care), in certain places (e.g., disadvantaged neighborhoods). It also showed how underlying processes of marginalization are largely neglected in the bill due to its focus on describing differences rather than solutions. Finally, we showed how different intersectional approaches could be used to complement and challenge this, potentially counteractive, problem representation. Conclusions: The problem representation of health inequalities and its underlying assumptions may have counteractive effects on health equity, and even though some of its strengths are raised, it seems to be profoundly entangled with a system resisting the kind of change that the bill itself advocates for. If carefully used, intersectionality has the potential to support a more comprehensive and inclusive equality-promoting public health policy and practice.

The concept of intersectionality has gradually been introduced to health inequality research, adding depth and breadth to the way inequalities in health are approached. We conducted a scoping review with the purpose to systematically map, describe and analyze the literature about intersectional inequalities in mental health. For eligibility, the study had to analyze and report inequality defined by combinations of socioeconomic position, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion. The mental health outcome had to be measured as self-reported symptoms assessed through validated scales, or disorders assessed through diagnostic interviews. The search strategy was applied in two databases and the screening process yielded 20 studies. The interaction of intersectional positions showed no consistent patterns in mental health across studies, but both synergistic and antagonistic effects were observed. In most studies an absolute measure of inequality was used and few studies analyzed factors potentially explaining the intersectional inequalities. Taken together, the findings of this review highlight the value of assessing intersectional inequalities across population groups for priority setting and action on mental health inequalities.

There is a strong call for clinically useful standardized assessment tools in everyday child and adolescent psychiatric practice. The attitudes of clinicians have been raised as a key-facilitating factor when implementing new methods. An explorative study was conducted aimed to investigate the clinicians’ attitudes regarding standardized assessments and usefulness of diagnoses in treatment planning. 411 mental health service personnel working with outpatient and inpatient assessment and treatment within the specialist child and adolescent mental health services, Stockholm County Council were asked to participate in the study, of which 345 (84%) agreed answer a questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions regarding Attitudes toward Standardized Assessment and Utility of Diagnosis. Descriptive analyses were performed and four subscales were compared with information from a similar study in US using the same instruments. The demographic and professional characteristics (age, working years, gender, education, profession, management position, involvement in assessment, level of service) in terms of prediction of attitudes were studied by univariate and multivariate linear regressions. Overall, the clinicians had quite positive attitudes and were more positive compared to a similar study conducted in the US earlier. There were differences in attitudes due to several characteristics but the only characteristic predicting all subscales was type of profession (counselor, nurse, psychiatrist, psychologist, other), with counselors being less positive than other groups. The overall positive attitudes toward standard assessment are of importance in the development of evidence-based practice and our study implies that clinicians in general value and are willing to use standardized assessment. Nevertheless, there are specific issues such as adequate training and available translated assessment instrument that need to be addressed. When implementing new methods in practice, there are general as well as specific resistances that need to be overcome. Studies in different cultural settings are of importance to further extend the knowledge of what is general and what is specific barriers.