Search

Copyright of Medical Anthropology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives. To identify appropriate interventions to prevent injury, we conducted a qualitative study among commercial shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. Methods. Using qualitative and participatory research methods, including interviews, photovoice, and workplace observations in southeast Texas and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, we examined the social‒structural dimensions that contribute to physical and psychological injury. Results. We found that multiple layers of vulnerability and danger exist among shrimpers with interacting themes: (1) recognizing risk, (2) precarious employment, and (3) psychological distress. Conclusions. Our results add to the growing body of knowledge that emphasizes the negative health impacts of underregulated, high-risk, and physically demanding work performed primarily by im/migrants. Public Health Implications. Our findings highlight the larger social‒structural conditions and context of hardships endemic to migrant labor and suggest implications for practice and policy interventions. ( Am J Public Health . 2024;114(8):824-832. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307696).

Rural populations in the United States are faced with a variety of health disparities that complicate access to care. Community health workers (CHWs) and their Spanish-speaking counterparts, promotores de salud , are well-equipped to address rural health access issues, provide education, and ultimately assuage these disparities. In this article, we compare community health workers in the states of Indiana and Texas, based on the results of two separate research studies, in order to (1) investigate the unique role of CHWs in rural communities and (2) understand how their advocacy efforts represent a central form of caregiving. Drawing on ethnographic, qualitative data-including interviews, photovoice, and participant observation-we analyze how CHWs connect structurally vulnerable clients in rural areas to resources, health education, and health and social services. Our primary contribution to existing scholarship on CHWs is the elaboration of advocacy as a form of caregiving to improve individual health outcomes as well as provoke structural change in the form of policy development. Finally, we describe how CHWs became especially critical in addressing disparities among rural populations in the wake of COVID-19, using their advocacy-as-caregiving role that was developed and well-established before the pandemic. These frontline workers are more vital than ever to address disparities and are a critical force in overcoming structural vulnerability and inequities in health in the United States.

Risk modeling is an increasingly important part of clinical medicine; however, "risk status" is a complex notion, understood differently by patients and clinicians. Patients' ability to make informed choices about clinical procedures often requires that they interpret risk statistics, which may be difficult to understand and apply. In this article, which is based on a study of prenatal care in South Texas, we consider how notions of risk affect patient decisions about prenatal genetic testing. The term "risk" carries multiple meanings for clinicians and patients. These meanings may conflate concepts of danger and probability as well as muddle population risk and individual risk. We propose that failure to articulate the varied and contrasting meanings of risk held by clinicians and patients can undermine clinical communication and, thereby, hamper patients' ability to make autonomous, informed choices. Attending to these differences may prove useful in empowering patients to make truly informed decisions.

With the increasing technical sophistication of medicine, clinicians' task of assuring patient informed consent is increasingly elusive. Taking the example of prenatal genetic testing, we examine efforts to communicate the complexities of genetic knowledge and risk calculation to patients. In this qualitative, descriptive study, we interviewed 50 clinicians and 40 patients, and observed 101 genetic counseling sessions. We found the clinicians and patients have different goals, purposes, and values regarding testing, which affect their clinical interactions. The information the clinicians provide patients reflects their clinical interest in identifying and controlling pathophysiology, while patients, in contrast, are most concerned with protecting and nurturing their pregnancy. We argue informed patient decision-making about prenatal testing options requires information that is responsive to patient interests. We recommend developing a shared decision-making approach, to facilitate the full participation of both clinicians and patients in the decision-making process.