Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada; Women's Studies and Feminist Research, Western University, London, Canada.
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada; Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Apr;226:236-245. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.015. Epub 2019 Jan 21.
Intersectionality as a theoretical framework has gained prominence in qualitative research on social inequity. Intercategorical quantitative applications have focused primarily on describing health or social inequalities across intersectional groups, coded using cross-classified categories or interaction terms. This descriptive intersectionality omits consideration of the mediating processes (e.g., discrimination) through which intersectional positions impact outcome inequalities, which offer opportunities for intervention.
We argue for the importance of a quantitative analytic intersectionality. We identify methodological challenges and potential solutions in structuring studies to allow for both intersectional heterogeneity in outcomes and in the ways that processes such as discrimination may cause these outcomes for those at different intersections.
To incorporate both mediation and exposure-mediator interaction, we use VanderWeele's three-way decomposition methodology, adapt the interpretation for application to analytic intersectionality studies, and present a step-by-step analytic approach. Using online panel data collected from Canada and the United States in 2016 (N = 2542), we illustrate this approach with a statistical analysis of whether and to what extent observed inequalities in psychological distress across intersections of ethnoracial group and sexual or gender minority (SGM) status may be explained by past-year experiences of day-to-day discrimination, assessed using the Intersectional Discrimination Index (InDI).
We describe actual and adjusted intersectional inequalities in psychological distress and decompose them to identify three component effects for each of 11 intersectional comparison groups (e.g., Indigenous SGM), versus the reference intersectional group that experienced the lowest levels of discrimination (white non-SGM). These reflect the expected inequality in outcome: 1) due to membership in the more discriminated-against group, if its members had experienced the same lower levels of discrimination as the reference intersection; 2) due to unequal levels of discrimination; and 3), due to unequal effects of discrimination. We present considerations for use and interpretation of these methods.
交叉性作为一种理论框架，在社会不平等的定性研究中越来越受到重视。跨范畴的定量应用主要集中在描述交叉群体的健康或社会不平等，这些群体是通过交叉分类类别或交互项来编码的。这种描述性的交叉性忽略了通过交叉位置影响结果不平等的中介过程（例如歧视）的考虑，这为干预提供了机会。
我们认为定量分析交叉性的重要性。我们确定了在构建研究结构时的方法学挑战和潜在解决方案，以允许结果和歧视等过程在不同交叉点的方式方面存在交叉异质性。
为了纳入中介和暴露-中介相互作用，我们使用 VanderWeele 的三向分解方法，调整解释以应用于分析交叉性研究，并提出逐步分析方法。使用 2016 年从加拿大和美国在线收集的面板数据（N=2542），我们使用交叉性的种族群体和性或性别少数群体（SGM）地位的心理困扰的观察到的不平等程度的统计分析来说明这种方法，这些不平等程度可以通过过去一年日常歧视经历来解释，使用交叉歧视指数（InDI）进行评估。
我们描述了心理困扰的实际和调整后的交叉性不平等，并对其进行分解，以确定 11 个交叉性比较组（例如，土著 SGM）中每个组的三个组成效应，与经历最低水平歧视的参考交叉性组（白人非 SGM）进行比较。这些反映了结果的预期不平等：1）由于属于受歧视程度更高的群体，如果其成员经历了与参考交叉性相同的较低水平的歧视；2）由于歧视程度不平等；3）由于歧视的影响不平等。我们提出了这些方法的使用和解释的注意事项。
