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 1st and 2nd generation work was necessary as a foundation for your current work (or current interests).
I appreciate the framework outlined in the Thomas et al. article when thinking about generations of research on health disparities and how interventions can be staged in different levels. I believe my work right now is second generation because we have identified the South Asian population as vulnerable in relation to late stage diagnosis of CRC, and am currently studying the barriers that this population faces in receiving screenings to prevent late stage treatment. I am interested in this field of study because it allows us to recognize the importance of provider race/ethnicity and language proficiency in terms of health outcomes for certain populations and unpack the disparities in accessible cultural health literacy for older-aged groups and immigrant families.
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.
I think a similar intervention to the one described in the Gottleib article could be applied to accessing abortion. When older-aged South Asians access healthcare services with their local physician and clinics, they face issues with navigating the healthcare system, receiving transportation to care, understanding the risks and benefits of screenings, and treatment options after diagnosis. These social and economic issues are some of the many reasons why this population may have higher rates of late stage diagnosis of CRC. An intervention of a culturally tailored screening education program or navigator could mitigate these risks by referring patients to the necessary healthcare system navigation and CRC awareness they need. Thus, this intervention would serve to bridge the gaps in the social determinants of health as well, by providing the population with a comfortable and safe platform to completely understand the health issue in the language of their proficiency, rather than depending on their family members who are more native in their understanding of the insurance and etc. By addressing the systemic issue of the unavailability and inaccessibility of South Asian physicians in the area, we could target these health disparities by connecting the population at risk with the information they need to make informed decisions.