Future Perfect? The Future of the Social Sciences in Public Health

The authors review the available empirical evidence from population-based studies of the association between perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination and health. This research indicates that discrimination is associated with multiple indicators of poorer physical and, especially, mental health status. However, the extant research does not adequately address whether and how exposure to discrimination leads to increased risk of disease. Gaps in the literature include limitations linked to measurement of discrimination, research designs, and inattention to the way in which the association between discrimination and health unfolds over the life course. Research on stress points to important directions for the future assessment of discrimination and the testing of the underlying processes and mechanisms by which discrimination can lead to changes in health.

Developed by Robert Connell, the theory of gender and power is a social structural theory based on existing philosophical writings of sexual inequality and gender and power imbalance. According to the theory of gender and power, there are three major social structures that characterize the gendered relationships between men and women: the sexual division of labor, the sexual division of power, and the structure of cathexis. The aim of this article is to apply an extended version of the theory of gender and power to examine the exposures, social/behavioral risk factors, and biological properties that increase women's vulnerability for acquiring HIV. Subsequently, the authors review several public health level HIV interventions aimed at reducing women's HIV risk. Employing the theory of gender and power among women marshals new kinds of data, asks new and broader questions with regard to women and their risk of HIV, and, most important, creates new options for prevention.

The authors propose reinvigorating and extending the traditional social history beyond its narrow range of risk behaviors to enable clinicians to address negative health outcomes imposed by social determinants of health. In this Perspective, they outline a novel, practical medical vulnerability assessment questionnaire that operationalizes for clinical practice the social science concept of "structural vulnerability." A structural vulnerability assessment tool designed to highlight the pathways through which specific local hierarchies and broader sets of power relationships exacerbate individual patients' health problems is presented to help clinicians identify patients likely to benefit from additional multidisciplinary health and social services. To illustrate how the tool could be implemented in time- and resource-limited settings (e.g., emergency department), the authors contrast two cases of structurally vulnerable patients with differing outcomes. Operationalizing structural vulnerability in clinical practice and introducing it in medical education can help health care practitioners think more clearly, critically, and practically about the ways social structures make people sick. Use of the assessment tool could promote "structural competency," a potential new medical education priority, to improve understanding of how social conditions and practical logistics undermine the capacities of patients to access health care, adhere to treatment, and modify lifestyles successfully. Adoption of a structural vulnerability framework in health care could also justify the mobilization of resources inside and outside clinical settings to improve a patient's immediate access to care and long-term health outcomes. Ultimately, the concept may orient health care providers toward policy leadership to reduce health disparities and foster health equity.