The need for an intersectionality framework in precision medicine research.

Precision medicine research has seen growing efforts to increase participation of communities that have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research. Marginalized racial and ethnic communities have received particular attention, toward the goal of improving the generalizability of scientific knowledge and promoting health equity. Against this backdrop, research has highlighted three key issues that could impede the promise of precision medicine research: issues surrounding (dis)trust and representation, challenges in translational efforts to improve health outcomes, and the need for responsive community engagement. Existing efforts to address these challenges have predominantly centered on single-dimensional demographic criteria such as race, ethnicity, or sex, while overlooking how these and additional variables, such as disability, gender identity, and socioeconomic factors, can confound and jointly impact research participation. We argue that increasing cohort diversity and the responsiveness of precision medicine research studies to community needs requires an approach that transcends conventional boundaries and embraces a more nuanced, multi-layered, and intersectional framework for data collection, analyses, and implementation. We draw attention to gaps in existing work, highlight how overlapping layers of marginalization might shape and substantiate one another and affect the precision-medicine research cycle, and put forth strategies to facilitate equitable advantages from precision-medicine research to diverse participants and internally heterogeneous communities.

Intersectionality within the racial justice movement in the summer of 2020.

In an environment that is high in racial justice saliency, how do identities inform motivation for supporting specific issues in the crowd? This study examines the role that intersectionality played in mobilizing participants to join the mass demonstrations sparked by the murder of George Floyd. Building on recent studies that show how protest participants connect issue-based concerns with their identities to boost support for movements, we analyze data collected through surveys with a random sample of activists participating in the protests after George Floyd's death in Washington, DC, in 2020. We find that intersectional motivations played a significant role in mobilizing protest participants. Analysis of these factors helps explain the diversity of the crowd and provides insights into how the movement may contribute to greater success for racial justice and the degree to which the movement has staying power.

Intersectional inequalities in science.

The US scientific workforce is primarily composed of White men. Studies have demonstrated the systemic barriers preventing women and other minoritized populations from gaining entry to science; few, however, have taken an intersectional perspective and examined the consequences of these inequalities on scientific knowledge. We provide a large-scale bibliometric analysis of the relationship between intersectional identities, topics, and scientific impact. We find homophily between identities and topic, suggesting a relationship between diversity in the scientific workforce and expansion of the knowledge base. However, topic selection comes at a cost to minoritized individuals for whom we observe both between- and within-topic citation disadvantages. To enhance the robustness of science, research organizations should provide adequate resources to historically underfunded research areas while simultaneously providing access for minoritized individuals into high-prestige networks and topics.

Assessing mental health treatment receipt among Asian adults with limited English proficiency using an intersectional approach.

US Asian adults and people with limited English proficiency (LEP) confront mental health treatment receipt disparities. At the intersection of racial and language injustice, Asian adults with LEP may face even greater disparity, but studies have not assessed this through explicitly intersectional approaches. Using 2019 and 2020 National Survey of Drug Use and Health data, we computed disparities in mental health treatment among those with mental illness comparing: non-Hispanic (NH) Asian adults with LEP to NH White adults without LEP (joint disparity), NH Asian adults without LEP to NH White adults without LEP (referent race disparity), NH Asian adults with LEP to those without LEP (referent LEP disparity), and the joint disparity versus the sum of referent disparities (excess intersectional disparity). In age- and gender-adjusted analyses, excess intersectional disparity was 26.8% (95% CI, -29.8 to 83.4) of the joint disparity in 2019 and 63.0% (95% CI, 29.1-96.8) in 2020. The 2019 joint disparity was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.31-2.42) times that if the race-related disparity did not vary by LEP, and if LEP-related disparity did not vary by race; this figure was 2.70 (95% CI, 0.23-5.17) in 2020. These findings highlight the necessity of considering the intersection of race and LEP in addressing mental health treatment disparities. This article is part of a Special Collection on Mental Health.

Invited Commentary: Mental health services utilization disparities at the intersection of Asian ethnoracial identity and limited English proficiency.

Nguyen et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2024;XXX(XX):XXX-XXX) analyzed data from the U.S. National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to show that Asian American Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (AANHPI) adults with limited English proficiency have substantially lower levels of mental health services utilization compared with White adults without limited English proficiency. The findings add to the growing literature using an intersectionality framework to understand health and healthcare disparities. We comment on the authors' notable examination of intersecting minoritized identities in mental health services utilization and the welcome emphasis on AANHPI health. We discuss the limitations of the NSDUH data, which is administered in English and Spanish only, and its limited ability to support analyses disaggregated by ethnoracial subgroups. We conclude by identifying gaps related to funding, training, and data disaggregation, and highlight the role of mixed methods approaches to advance our understanding of intersectionality and health disparities research.

Racial, Ethnic, and Sex Disparities in Mental Health Among US Service Members and Veterans: Findings From the Millennium Cohort Study.

Although disparities in mental health occur within racially, ethnically, and sex-diverse civilian populations, it is unclear whether these disparities persist within US military populations. Using cross-sectional data from the Millennium Cohort Study (2014-2016; n = 103,184; 70.3% male; 75.7% non-Hispanic White), a series of logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine whether racial, ethnic, and/or sex disparities were found in mental health outcomes (posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and problematic anger), hierarchically adjusting for sociodemographic, military, health-related, and social support factors. Compared with non-Hispanic White individuals, those who identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latino, or multiracial showed greater risk of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and problematic anger in unadjusted models. Racial and ethnic disparities in mental health were partially explained by health-related and social support factors. Women showed greater risk of depression and anxiety and lower risk of PTSD than men. Evidence of intersectionality emerged for problematic anger among Hispanic/Latino and Asian or Pacific Islander women. Overall, racial, ethnic, and sex disparities in mental health persisted among service members and veterans. Future research and interventions are recommended to reduce these disparities and improve the health and well-being of diverse service members and veterans.

An intersectional framework for counterfactual fairness in risk prediction.

Along with the increasing availability of health data has come the rise of data-driven models to inform decision making and policy. These models have the potential to benefit both patients and health care providers but can also exacerbate health inequities. Existing "algorithmic fairness" methods for measuring and correcting model bias fall short of what is needed for health policy in two key ways. First, methods typically focus on a single grouping along which discrimination may occur rather than considering multiple, intersecting groups. Second, in clinical applications, risk prediction is typically used to guide treatment, creating distinct statistical issues that invalidate most existing techniques. We present novel unfairness metrics that address both challenges. We also develop a complete framework of estimation and inference tools for our metrics, including the unfairness value ("u-value"), used to determine the relative extremity of unfairness, and standard errors and confidence intervals employing an alternative to the standard bootstrap. We demonstrate application of our framework to a COVID-19 risk prediction model deployed in a major Midwestern health system.

Theatre of the Oppressed to Teach Medical Students About Power, Lived Experience, and Health Equity.

BACKGROUND: A difficult challenge in health equity training is conducting honest and safe discussions about differences in lived experience based on social identity, and how racism and other systems of oppression impact health care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a Theatre of the Oppressed workshop for medical students that examines systems of oppression as related to lived health care experiences. DESIGN: Mixed-methods cross-sectional survey and interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Forty randomly assigned early first-year medical students. INTERVENTIONS: A 90-min virtual workshop with three clinical scenes created by students where a character is being discriminated against or oppressed. During performance, students can stop scene, replace oppressed character, and role play how they would address harm, marginalization, and power imbalance. Participants discuss what they have witnessed and experienced. MAIN MEASURES/APPROACH: Likert-scale questions assessing workshop's impact. Open-ended survey questions and interviews about workshop. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-one (78%) of 40 participants completed the survey. Fifty-three percent were female. Thirty-seven percent were White, 33% Asian American, 15% Black, 11% Latinx, and 4% multiracial. Ninety percent thought this training could help them take better care of patients with lived experiences different from their own. Most agreed or strongly agreed the workshop helped them develop listening (23, 77%) and observation (26, 84%) skills. Twelve (39%) students felt stressed, while 29 (94%) felt safe. Twenty-five (81%) students agreed or strongly agreed there were meaningful discussions about systemic inequities. Students reported the workshop helped them step into others' shoes, understand intersectional experiences of multiple identities, and discuss navigating and addressing bias, discrimination, social drivers of health, hierarchy, power structures, and systems of oppression. Some thought it was difficult to have open discussions because of fear of being poorly perceived by peers. CONCLUSIONS: Theatre of the Oppressed enabled medical students to engage in meaningful discussions about racism and other systems of oppression.

"Where Are You From?"-on Separation, Belonging and Imposter Syndrome as an International Medical Graduate.

Minoritized international medical graduates (IMGs) in American graduate medical education (GME) programs face a disproportionately higher number of intersectional micro- and macroaggressions. In order to create a healthier, more equitable learning environment, GME programs must make greater efforts to understand intersectionality, provide IMG trainees with additional support systems, incorporate effective bystander training, and celebrate and acknowledge the contributions of their minoritized IMG trainees.

Youth adversity and trajectories of depression/anxiety symptoms in adolescence in the context of intersectionality in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Youth adversity is associated with persistence of depression and anxiety symptoms. This association may be greater for disadvantaged societal groups (such as females) compared with advantaged groups (e.g. males). Given that persistent symptoms are observed across a range of disadvantaged, minoritized, and neurodivergent groups (e.g. low compared with high socio-economic status [SES]), the intersection of individual characteristics may be an important moderator of inequality. METHODS: Data from HeadStart Cornwall (N = 4441) was used to assess the effect of youth adversity on combined symptoms of depression and anxiety (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire emotional problems subscale) measured at three time-points in 11-14-year-olds. Latent trajectories and regressions were estimated for eight intersectionality profiles (based on gender, SES, and hyperactivity/inattention), and moderating effects of the individual characteristics and their intersections were estimated. RESULTS: Youth adversity was associated with higher average depression/anxiety symptoms at baseline (11-12-years) across all intersectionality profiles. The magnitude of effects differed across profiles, with suggestive evidence for a moderating effect of youth adversity on change over time in depression/anxiety symptoms attributable to the intersection between (i) gender and SES; and (ii) gender, SES, and hyperactivity/inattention. CONCLUSIONS: The detrimental effects of youth adversity pervade across intersectionality profiles. The extent to which these effects are moderated by intersectionality is discussed in terms of operational factors. The current results provide a platform for further research, which is needed to determine the importance of intersectionality as a moderator of youth adversity on the development of depression and anxiety symptoms in adolescence.

Critical decisions: A mixed-methods study of decision-making among diverse gynecologic cancer patients considering therapeutic clinical trial enrollment.

OBJECTIVE: Participation in therapeutic clinical trials does not reflect the diversity of gynecologic cancer patients, limiting access to novel therapeutics and generalizability of results. Reasons for inequities in participation among historically underrepresented populations remain undertheorized, as studies have shown equal willingness to participate among groups. We sought to apply a precarity framework to conceptualize the factors that impact patients' desire to enroll, to improve equity in gynecologic oncology clinical trial participation. METHODS: Gynecologic cancer patients at a single tertiary care facility in the Southwestern United States who discussed participation in therapeutic clinical trial with their oncology provider from 2020 to 2021 were identified. Enrolled participants completed surveys and qualitative interviews regarding treatment experiences and decision-making. Oncology providers completed parallel surveys at the time of their patient's enrollment. Descriptive statistics and thematic coding were used to analyze data. RESULTS: 30 patients were enrolled and participated in surveys and interviews. No differences were found in quantitative data assessing shared decision-making and patient-centered communication between those who enrolled and those who did not. Qualitative data demonstrated that patients who declined trial enrollment expressed concerns regarding uncertainty and loss of control, independence in decision-making, and significant resource challenges and financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a constellation of factors that contribute to desire to enroll in clinical trials, that we describe using the framework of precarity. Through identification of precarious patients and mitigation of burdens, we anticipate improved enrollment and retention in therapeutic clinical trials among diverse gynecologic oncology patients.

A Narrative Review of the Current Research in Cancer-Related Pain Inequities: The Necessity of Applying Intersectionality to Advance Cancer Pain Research.

Cancer-related pain has a significant impact on quality of life for patients with cancer. In populations without cancer, there are documented pain inequities associated with minoritized racial and/or ethnic groups, women, and low socioeconomic status. However, our understanding of pain inequities specifically among patients with cancer remains incomplete. We narratively synthesized published quantitative research on cancer-related pain inequities in the US in the past decade. A search identified 17 English-language articles examining pain for patients with various cancer types at different treatment stages. Our review revealed mixed findings comparing cancer-related pain by racial group (e.g., Black vs White) and sex (male vs female), but consistent findings indicating that people with lower (vs higher) socioeconomic status and younger (vs older) patients report more cancer-related pain. Research on cancer pain among sexual and gender minorities remains scant. Key research gaps include a need for more research that incorporates an intersectional perspective by exploring intersecting subgroups and measuring social and structural processes that drive pain inequities. These findings underscore an important need for researchers to use an intersectional approach to cancer pain to help elucidate key populations at-risk for exacerbated cancer-related pain and identify ways to mitigate social and structural processes that drive these inequities.

There are known differences in pain experiences among people from different racial or ethnic groups, sex (male or female) or gender (men or women), and socioeconomic groups such as low income people. However, we don't fully understand these differences among cancer patients yet. This review looks at the past 10 years of research on how cancer-related pain may differ for people from different sociodemographic groups. We collected information from 17 studies in the US that looked at how pain from different types of cancer and different stages of treatment may differ for people from these different groups. We found mixed results when comparing pain between racial groups and sex and/or gender groups, but consistently found that people with lower incomes and younger patients reported more pain. There's not much research on how cancer pain affects sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+ people). Our review suggests that we need an intersectional approach to best understand cancer-related pain in order to best address how structural discrimination influences pain. Researchers should use an intersectional perspective, which will help us find out who's most at risk of severe cancer pain and find ways to help them better.

Are HIV Prevention Services Reaching all LGBTQ+ Youth? An Intersectional Analysis in a National Sample.

Although research has examined disparities in HIV prevention behaviors, intersectional research is needed to understand who may be underserved. This study examines disparities in consistent condom use, HIV testing, and PrEP awareness and use across assigned sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and racial/ethnic identity in a large sample of sexually active LGBTQ+ youth (mean age = 16.5) who completed the 2022 LGBTQ National Teen Survey. Four social identities were included as indicators in Chi-Square Automated Interaction Detection models to uncover disparate rates of HIV preventive behaviors. Generally, HIV testing and PrEP services were higher among gay/lesbian and queer youth assigned male, and lower among those assigned female. Certain LGBTQ+ youth may be systematically missed by these services, (e.g., those assigned female; those assigned male who also identify as bisexual, pansexual, asexual, questioning, or straight (and trans/gender diverse)). Providers should strive to serve populations who are not being reached by HIV prevention services.

RESUMEN: Aunque las investigaciones han examinado disparidades en los comportamientos de prevención del VIH, la aplicación de un esquema interseccional es necesario para entender quienes tienen menos acceso a los cuidados de la salud. Este estudio examina disparidides en el uso del condón, las pruebas de VIH y el conocimiento y el uso de profilaxis preexposición (PrEP) entre el sexo asignado, la identidad del género, la orientación sexual, la identidad racial/étnica) en una muestra nacional de jovenes (edad promedia = 16.5), LGBTQ+. Cuatro identidades sociales estuvieron incluidas como indicadores en el modelo de la Detección de la Interacción Automática de Chi-Square para detectar diferencias de comportamientos de prevención. Generalmente, el uso de las pruebas de VIH y los servicios de PrEP estaban mas alto entre los jovenes gay/lesbiana y queer asignados masculinos y mas bajo entre jóvenes asignadas femeninas. Es posible que ciertos jovenes LGBTQ+ estén omitidos de los servicios de las pruebas de VIH y PrEP, incluyendo jóvenes que fueron asignadas feminidas, ovenes bisexuales, pansexuales, asexuales, cuestionando, o heterosexuales (transgénero/a/e o de diversos géneros) que fueron asignados masculinos. Los profesionales de salud deben luchar para servir a las poblaciones que están fuera del alcance de los servicios preventivos del VIH.

Intersectionality of HIV Stigma with Female Identity: An Investigation among Women Living with HIV/AIDS in Vietnam.

Women living with HIV/AIDS (WLHA) in Vietnam encounter challenges stemming from HIV-related stigma and gender disparities. This study delves into the intersectionality of HIV-related stigma and gender disparities as perceived by WLHA. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 91 WLHA in Hanoi, Vietnam. Two sets of identically worded scales were used to measure awareness, agreement, and application of stigma towards people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHA) and WLHA. A larger difference between stigma scores towards WLHA and that of PLHA represents a higher level of female-specific stigma. Univariate analyses and multiple regressions were conducted to identify demographic and psycho-social factors associated with the gendered differences in stigma measures. Multiple linear regression showed that WLHA who were currently married were more likely to apply stigma concepts to themselves due to gender identity (adjusted beta coefficient (aBeta Coef) = 0.223). Psychological capital was negatively associated with awareness of stigma towards female identity (aBeta Coef = -0.261). A higher perceived norm in women's equity and power was associated with less self-application of female-specific stigma (aBeta Coef = -0.294). Our findings underscore the importance of addressing psychological well-being and promoting gender equity norms as essential components in the efforts to reduce female-specific HIV-related stigma in WLHA.

Systems Connected to Inequities in Access to Kidney Transplantation and the Value of Intersectionality.

Patients from minoritized backgrounds based on race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and other social identities are more likely to experience inequities in access in kidney transplantation. Although these inequities have been reported over the decades, limited research focuses on the experiences of patients with intersecting minoritized social statuses and the mechanisms that contribute to their reduced access to transplantation. Intersectionality, a framework for understanding the ways in which multiple social identities represent interacting systems of oppression and privilege, offers a nuanced approach for understanding the experiences of patients diagnosed with end-stage organ disease with intersecting social identities. This article outlines complex systems that perpetuate inequities by highlighting the value of intersectionality in studying disparate outcomes to transplant and providing recommendations for the transplant community. This article aligns with the ESOT call for action to promote equity in transplantation worldwide.

Intersectionality matters for hispanic health: A replication study using the All of Us Research Program.

BACKGROUND: Despite research dedicated to understanding the health profiles and health-related outcomes of Hispanic individuals, the prevailing body of literature frequently homogenizes the Hispanic population, failing to address the role of race in Hispanic health discourse. Thus, the current study applies an intersectional lens to identify health differences and similarities among Hispanic subgroups. METHODS: Sociodemographic characteristics and health domain variables (i.e., health status, health services, and health behaviors) from participants (N = 11,192) were included in the analyses. Bivariate Chi-squared tests examined the relationship between sociodemographic and health domain variables Black Hispanic individuals, white Hispanic individuals, and non-Hispanic Black individuals. RESULTS: Findings suggest that Non-Hispanic Black American individuals reported the highest rates of hypertension (49.09%) and diabetes (19.62%) compared to Black-Hispanic individuals (22.45% and 12.98%) and white Hispanic individuals (22.22% and 8.02%). Black Hispanic individuals reported the greatest proportion of asthma diagnoses (35.10%) and those who saw a doctor in the previous year (95.52%) compared to white Hispanic individuals (26.84%, and 91.10%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Black individuals ( 21.74%, and 94.69%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Specifically, we found that several health behaviors and health-related outcomes significantly varied across different racial/ethnic groups, demonstrating the advantage of an intersectional approach to identify health disparities among racially diverse ethnic groups. PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE: We encourage the development of health care services with an awareness of the complexities resulting from racial differences within the Hispanic diaspora.

A realist impact evaluation of a tool to strengthen equity in local government policy-making.

BACKGROUND: Local governments have a critical role to play in addressing health inequities. Health equity impact assessments are recommended to help governments apply an equity lens to the development and implementation of policies and programs. Despite evidence of equity-positive benefits of such tools, adoption remains limited, prompting calls for evaluations to assess their impact and identify factors that will promote uptake across various contexts. METHODS: We conducted a mixed method study to evaluate the impact of an equity impact assessment (EIA) tool and process on policies and organisational capacity in a local government in Victoria, Australia, and identify factors that influenced this impact. We analysed 33 documents related to 18 EIAs, and conducted surveys (n = 40) and in-depth interviews (n = 17) with staff involved in EIAs. RESULTS: Almost all (17 of 18) EIAs resulted in equity-positive changes to policies and programs, most frequently addressing individual-level factors, such as making community communications and consultations more accessible to under-represented or under-served groups. Structural-level recommendations from one EIA, such as increasing diversity in decision-making panels, were found to impact both the current policy and a broad range of future, related projects and services. Improvements in equity-centric organisational culture and capacity (including staff awareness, skills and confidence) and increased engagement with under-represented communities were also reported. Factors perceived to influence the impact of EIA's related to organisational commitment and capacity to prioritise equity, process-level factors related to the type and timing of EIAs, and extent of implementation support. CONCLUSION: Our study supports wider uptake of health equity impact assessments in local government policies and programs. Legislation, leadership and resources from upper-tiers of government can help increase the adoption of equity tools to reduce disparities in population health.

Perceived discrimination and refraining from seeking physician's care in Sweden: an intersectional analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (AIHDA).

BACKGROUND: Discrimination may further impede access to medical care for individuals in socially disadvantaged positions. Sociodemographic information and perceived discrimination intersect and define multiple contexts or strata that condition the risk of refraining from seeking physician's care. By applying analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (AIHDA) we aimed to improve the mapping of risk by considering both strata average risk differences and the accuracy of such strata risks for distinguishing between individuals who did or did not refrain from seeking physician's care. METHODS: We analysed nine annual National Public Health Surveys (2004, 2007-2014) in Sweden including 73,815 participants. We investigated the risk of refraining from seeking physician's care across 64 intersectional strata defined by sex, education, age, country of birth, and perceived discrimination. We calculated strata-specific prevalences and prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to evaluate the discriminatory accuracy (DA). RESULTS: Discriminated foreign-born women aged 35-49 with a low educational level show a six times higher risk (PR = 6.07, 95% CI 5.05-7.30) than non-discriminated native men with a high educational level aged 35-49. However, the DA of the intersectional strata was small (AUC = 0.64). Overall, discrimination increased the absolute risk of refraining from seeking physician's care, over and above age, sex, and educational level. CONCLUSIONS: AIHDA disclosed complex intersectional inequalities in the average risk of refraining from seeking physician's care. This risk was rather high in some strata, which is relevant from an individual perspective. However, from a population perspective, the low DA of the intersectional strata suggests that potential interventions to reduce such inequalities should be universal but tailored to the specific contextual characteristics of the strata. Discrimination impairs access to healthcare.

Impact of an oral care subsidization reform on intersectional inequities in self-rated oral health in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Oral health in Sweden is good at the population level, but seemingly with persisting or increasing inequities over the last decades. In 2008, a major Swedish reform introduced universal partial subsidies to promote preventive care and reduce the treatment cost for patients with extensive care needs. This study aimed to apply an intersectional approach to assess the impact of the 2008 subsidization reform on inequities in self-rated oral health among adults in Sweden over the period 2004-2018. METHODS: Data from 14 national surveys conducted over 2004-2018 were divided into three study periods: pre-reform (2004-2007), early post-reform (2008-2012) and late post-reform (2013-2018). The final study population was 118,650 individuals aged 24-84 years. Inequities in self-rated oral health were examined by intersectional analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy across 48 intersectional strata defined by gender, age, educational level, income, and immigrant status. RESULTS: Overall, the prevalence of poor self-rated oral health decreased gradually after the reform. Gender-, education- and income-related inequities increased after the reform, but no discernible change was seen for age- or immigration-related inequities. The majority of intersectional strata experienced patterns of persistently or delayed increased inequities following the reform. CONCLUSIONS: Increased inequities in self-rated oral health were found in most intersectional strata following the reform, despite the seemingly positive oral health trends at the population level. Applying an intersectional approach might be particularly relevant for welfare states with overall good oral health outcomes but unsuccessful efforts to reduce inequities.

Intersectionality analysis of young people's experiences and perceptions of discrimination in primary health centers in Ebonyi State, Southeast Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Young people (aged 10 to 24 years) in sub-Saharan Africa bear a huge and disproportionate burden of poor sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes due to inequalities and discrimination in accessing sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS). This study assessed the experiences and perceptions of discrimination among young people seeking SRH services in Primary Health Centers (PHCs) using an intersectionality lens. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study was undertaken in six local government areas (LGAs) in Ebonyi State, southeast Nigeria. The LGAs comprise both urban and rural locations. The study population for the quantitative survey consisted of 1025 randomly selected young boys and girls aged 15-24 years. Eleven focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with the young people. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed for quantitative data, while thematic analysis was performed for the qualitative data, using NVivo. RESULTS: A total of 16.68% participants in the survey reported that young girls/women were treated badly/unfairly compared to young boys/men when seeking SRH services in PHCs; 15.22% reported that young clients get treated badly/unfairly from adults; and 12.49% reported that young clients with poor economic status were treated unfairly. Respondents also reported that young clients with disability (12.12%), and those who are poorly educated or uneducated (10.63%) are treated badly by healthcare providers when they access SRH services. Young people in urban areas were about 7 times more likely to believe that girls/young women are treated badly than boys/young men when seeking SRH services in PHCs compared to those who live in rural areas (p < 0.001). Among the young girls/women, residing in urban areas, being poor and in school increased the likelihood of getting treated badly/unfairly when receiving SRH services by 4 times (p < 0.001). The qualitative results revealed that health workers were generally harsh to young people seeking SRH services and the level of harshness or unfriendliness of the health workers varied depending on the young person's social identity. CONCLUSION: There are varieties of intersecting factors that contribute to the discrimination of young clients in PHCs. This underscores the urgent need to prioritize intersectional perspectives in the design and implementation of interventions that will improve access and use of SRH services by young people.