| Literature DB >> 31254965 |
Alexandra B Collins1, Jade Boyd2, Hannah L F Cooper3, Ryan McNeil4.
Abstract
Current conceptual models for examining the production of risk and harm (e.g. syndemics, 'risk environment') in substance use research have been fundamental in emphasizing broader environmental factors that shape health outcomes for people who use drugs (PWUD). However, the application of these frameworks in ways that highlight nuance and complexity has remained challenging, with much of this research focusing on select social positions (e.g. race, gender) and social-structural factors (e.g. poverty, drug policies). It is crucial that we move to better accounting for these relations in the context of substance use research to enhance equity in research and ensure understanding of diverse and complex needs. Building on the risk environment framework and complementary approaches, this article introduces the 'intersectional risk environment' as an approach to understanding the interconnected ways that social locations converge within the risk environment to produce or mitigate drug-related outcomes. This framework integrates a relational intersectional lens to examine how differential outcomes across populations of PWUD are produced in relation to social location and processes operating across social-structural dimensions. In doing so, the intersectional risk environment highlights how outcomes are products of processes and relations that are embodied, reflected, and challenged while situated within social, historical, and geographic contexts. Incorporating this framework into future research may improve understandings of health outcomes for PWUD and better orient structural interventions and public health approaches to address differential risks and experiences of PWUD.Entities:
Keywords: Health inequities; Health outcomes; Intersectionality; Risk environment; Substance use
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31254965 PMCID: PMC6719791 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soc Sci Med ISSN: 0277-9536 Impact factor: 4.634