Search results

Although Black individuals are disproportionately affected by hypertension as evidenced by higher prevalence and lower control rates, few studies have investigated this disparity from the lens of those most affected by this condition. This chapter explores how Black men make sense of their hypertension and how they negotiate this condition within their everyday lives, illuminating how racism and power dynamics embedded within their environments affect their experiences living with hypertension.

Critical Race Theory tenets were utilized alongside a narrative design to elicit stories of hypertension experiences of four Black men living in Ontario, Canada. Eight semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted, transcribed, and thematically analyzed to illuminate how participants create meaning in regard to their hypertension.

Participants’ experiences with discrimination, isolation, and migration raise awareness of how power relations embedded within social, political, and historical contexts can affect hypertension experiences.

The findings of this study are bounded by its narrative context, and the characteristics of the individuals who shared their experiences.

This study highlights the importance of how discussions concerning hypertensive minority men should be broadened to include the voices of such men, as well as the structures that discriminate against and oppress minority individuals.

We investigate how career disruptions in terms of job loss may impact morbidity for individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Combining unique, high-quality longitudinal data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) with matched employer–employee data, we focus on individuals diagnosed with T2D, who are established on the labor market and who lose their job in a mass layoff. Using a conditional difference-in-differences evaluation approach, our results give limited support for job loss having an impact on health behavior, diabetes progression, and cardiovascular risk factors.

The preponderance of studies that rely on self-report for both independent (e.g. stressors) and dependent (e.g. well-being) variables is often deplored, as it creates problems of common method variance, which may lead to inflated, or even spurious, correlations and predictions. It is sometimes suggested that alternative measures should yield more “objective” information on the phenomena under investigation. We discuss this issue with regard to: (a) observational measures of working conditions; (b) physiological measures of strain; and (c) event-based “self-observation” on a micro-level. We argue that these methods are not necessarily “objective.” Like self-report, they are influenced by a plethora of factors; and measurement artifacts can easily be produced. All this can make their interpretation quite difficult, and the conclusion that lack of convergence with self-report automatically invalidates self-report is not necessarily warranted. Especially with regard to physiological measures, one has to keep in mind that they refer to a different response level that follows its own laws and is only loosely coupled with psychological responses. Therefore, replacement is not a promising way to get more reliable estimates of stressor-strain relationships. We argue instead that each method contains both substantive and error variance, and that a combination of various methods seems more auspicious. After discussing advantages and pitfalls of observational, physiological, and self-observational measures, respectively, we report empirical examples from our own research on each of these methods, which are meant to illustrate both the advantages and the problems associated with them. They strengthen the overall conclusion that there is no “substitute” for self-report (which often is necessary to be able to interpret data from other methods, most notably physiological ones). They also illustrate that collecting such data is quite cumbersome, and that a number of conditions have to be carefully considered before using them, and we report some problems we encountered in this research. Altogether, we conclude that self-report measures, if carefully constructed, are better than their reputation, but that the optimal way is to complement them with other measures.

The purpose of this chapter is to review and synthesise the available evidence for the health benefits of walking. It follows a non-systematic evidence review and finds that the evidence base for the health benefits of walking is growing. Increasingly we are finding strong evidence for the beneficial effects of walking for both individuals and populations. More evidence is required on how to better understand the health outcomes associated with walking and how to promote long term increases in walking behaviour. Systematic reviews of specific health benefits remain rare. Walking should be promoted in all population groups regardless of age or sex. There are currently few existing integrative syntheses of the physical and mental health outcomes associated with walking and this chapter aims to help fill that gap.

To evaluate the extent to which a person’s educational attainment moderates the relationship between his or her objective markers of health and self-rated health (SRH).

I use 10 years’ worth of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 1999–2009; N = 30,823) to examine how diagnosed medical conditions, health behaviors, and biomarkers are differentially associated with SRH by educational attainment. I use regression analysis to evaluate these relationships.

Results show that while medical conditions are negatively associated with SRH equally across education levels, behaviors and biomarkers have stronger association with SRH among individuals with greater education. Those with more education are more likely to have had their blood pressure and cholesterol checked in recent months. They are also more likely to correctly identify themselves as overweight when their body mass index exceeds 25.

The chapter’s findings indicate that education may play a role in how people interpret and evaluate their own health. Real differences in how people evaluate their health can impact the conclusions that researchers can draw when comparing SRH between education groups. In addition these results can motivate further research in the causes of health disparities. Self-evaluation of health can potentially influence how people monitor and manage their health. Differences in self-evaluation between levels of educational attainment could contribute to disparities in health and mortality.

This chapter examines the relationship between self-rated health, objective markers of health, and education in a novel framework.

To present the view that harm arising from aggressive marketing and sales of health-related products and services (including dangerous and defective ones) in order to maximize profits should be a cause of concern for public health academics and practitioners.

The discussion is conducted using biomedical ethics principles and supported using various real-world examples.

Harm arising from aggressive marketing and sales of health-related products and services (including dangerous and defective ones) in order to maximize profits should be a cause of concern for public health academics and practitioners. In the area of products, the most obvious would be tobacco products. In the case of pharmaceutical drugs, it would include overuse or inappropriate use because of aggressive marketing. It would also include harm caused by the continued promotion and sale of a drug in the face of evidence that it has significant negative side effects. Brody and Light’s “Inverse Benefit Law,” that is, the benefit-to-harm ratio of drugs tends to vary inversely with how aggressively drugs are marketed is discussed. Harm is also evident in health-related services, for example, misuse of ultrasonography for sex-selective abortion. This chapter will discuss how the risk of harm is increased because of questionable marketing strategies used by drug companies.

One limitation is that no attempt to quantify the harm done (e.g., through economic evaluation techniques) is carried out.

This chapter presents the view that much more attention should be paid to this aspect of medicalization as a public health threat.

Heritability studies attempt to estimate the contribution of genes (vs. environments) to variation in phenotypes (or outcomes of interest) in a given population at a given time. This chapter scrutinizes heritability studies of adverse health phenotypes, emphasizing flaws that have become more glaring in light of recent advances in the life sciences and manifest most visibly in epigenetics.

Drawing on a diverse body of research and critical scholarship, this chapter examines the veracity of methodological and conceptual assumptions of heritability studies.

The chapter argues that heritability studies are futile for two reasons: (1) heritability studies suffer from serious methodological flaws with the overall effect of making estimates inaccurate and likely biased toward inflated heritability, and, more importantly (2) the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend – that of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance – is unsound. As discussed, contemporary bioscientific work indicates that genes and environments are enmeshed in a complex (bidirectional, interactional), dynamic relationship that defies any attempt to demarcate separate contributions to phenotype variance. Thus, heritability studies attempt the biologically impossible. The emerging research on the importance of microbiota is also discussed, including how the commensal relationship between microbial and human cells further stymies heritability studies.

Understandably, few sociologists have the time or interest to be informed about the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of heritability studies or to keep pace with the incredible advances in genetics and epigenetics over the last several years. The present chapter aims to provide interested scholars with information about heritability and heritability estimates of adverse health outcomes in light of recent advances in the biosciences.