Eschliman Evan L, Kisanga Edwina P, Huang Long Jie, Poku Ohemaa B, Genberg Becky L, German Danielle, Murray Sarah M, Yang Lawrence H, Kaufman Michelle R
Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
BMC Public Health. 2024 Dec 30;24(1):3614. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-21171-8.
Research that investigates the negative health effects of stigma beyond the individual and interpersonal levels is increasingly using the concept of "structural stigma." This scoping review investigates how the concept of "structural stigma" has been used and operationalized in health-related literature to date in order to characterize its usage and inform future operationalizations.
A systematic search and screening process identified peer-reviewed, English-language research articles that used the term "structural stigma" available prior to January 1, 2024 in five databases (i.e., PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL).
Of the 298 articles identified, over half (53%) were published from 2021 onward. Articles most commonly were set in the United States (n = 163, 55%), investigated stigma toward sexual minority people (n = 163, 55%), and cited the introduction of a special issue of Social Science & Medicine as their source of the concept (n = 84, 28%). Most articles (64%) used at least one additional conceptual framework, most commonly minority stress theory (n = 107, 36%). Quantitative operationalizations (n = 102) engaged most in the conceptual domain of laws and government-level policies, while qualitative operationalizations (n = 68) engaged most with institutional (i.e., non-government-level) policies, practices, and procedures.
As the use of "structural stigma" is increasing, operationalizations can better leverage the concept's breadth and account for individuals' intersectional lived experiences. This will necessitate bridging across methodologies and bodies of research on related negative social processes.
研究个体和人际层面之外的污名化对健康的负面影响的研究越来越多地使用“结构性污名”这一概念。本综述旨在探讨“结构性污名”这一概念在迄今为止的健康相关文献中是如何被使用和操作化的，以便描述其用法并为未来的操作化提供参考。
通过系统的检索和筛选过程，确定了在五个数据库（即PubMed、PsycINFO、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL）中2024年1月1日前发表的使用“结构性污名”一词的同行评审英文研究文章。
在识别出的298篇文章中，超过一半（53%）是2021年以后发表的。文章最常以美国为背景（n = 163，55%），研究对象是对性少数群体的污名（n = 163，55%），并将《社会科学与医学》特刊的引言作为该概念的来源（n = 84，28%）。大多数文章（64%）使用了至少一个额外的概念框架，最常见的是少数群体压力理论（n = 107，36%）。定量操作化（n = 102）主要涉及法律和政府层面政策的概念领域，而定性操作化（n = 68）主要涉及机构（即非政府层面）的政策、实践和程序。
随着“结构性污名”的使用不断增加，操作化可以更好地利用该概念的广度，并考虑个体的交叉生活经历。这将需要跨越相关负面社会过程的方法论和研究领域。
