1. After reading the article by Thomas et al., comment on where your research, or your research interests, fit into the generational framework for health disparities research. If your work is 1st or 2nd generation, comment on how your work could lead in the future to 3rd or 4th generation work. If your work is 3rd or 4th generation, comment on what 1rst and 2nd generation work was necessary as a foundation for your current work (or current interests).
My current research is best described as first generation or second generation. I am evaluating if a patient’s race influences a provider’s decision to order a urine drug screen or ethanol level and what the do with the results (refer to treatment, start medication, nothing etc). If disparities exist then targeted interventions to improve use of evidence based substance use disorder treatments in minorities would be a logical next step (third generation).
2. The barbershop hypertension intervention, while essentially a clinical services intervention operating at either the fence or safety-net level as described by Jones, has some engagement with the social determinants of health. Interventions like that described in the Gottleib article are designed to mitigate the impact of social determinants. How could you apply one of these two types of interventions to your area of research? Propose one or two interventions that engage with social determinants on some level.
There are many social determinants of substance use disorders (SUD). Patients with SUD would possibly benefit from case management services to help navigate the health/social service system. An intervention similar to one undertaken by Gottleib et al. could be applied to patients visiting the ED for a SUD related complaint.