Search

Acculturation has become a popular variable in research on health disparities among certain ethnic minorities, in the absence of serious reflection about its central concepts and assumptions. Key constructs such as what constitutes a culture, which traits pertain to the ethnic versus 'mainstream' culture, and what cultural adaptation entails have not been carefully defined. Using examples from a systematic review of recent articles, this paper critically reviews the development and application of the concept of acculturation in US health research on Hispanics. Multiple misconceptions and errors in the central assumptions underlying the concept of acculturation are examined, and it is concluded that acculturation as a variable in health research may be based more on ethnic stereotyping than on objective representations of cultural difference. Keywords: Acculturation; Research methods; Hispanic Americans; Ethnic groups; Health inequalities; Mexican-Americans

Racial discrimination and poverty are the major contributors to unequal health status. Genetic research also has a significant role to play in alleviating this problem augmented by several factors like research funding initiatives and the distinct demographic patterns of health disparities in the United States.

This paper examines the discourse of oncologists treating cancer in a provincial capital of southern Mexico. Based on an analysis of both formal interviews and observations of everyday clinical practice, it examines a set of narrative themes they used to maintain a sense of professionalism and possibility as they endeavored to apply a highly technologically dependent biomedical model in a resource-poor context. They moved between coexisting narrative frameworks as they addressed their formidable problems of translating between theory and practice. In a biomedical narrative frame, they drew on biomedical theory to produce a model of cellular dysfunction and of clinical intervention. However, limited availability of diagnostic and treatment techniques and patients inability or unwillingness to comply, presented serious constraints to the application of this model. They used a practical narrative frame to discuss the socio-economic issues they understood to be underlying these limitations to their clinical practice. They did not experience the incongruity between theory and practice as a continual challenge to their biomedical model, nor to their professional competency. Instead, through a reconciling narrative frame, they mediated this conflict. In this frame, they drew on culturally specific concepts of moral rightness and order to produce accounts that minimized the problem, exculpated themselves and cast blame for failed diagnosis and treatment. By invoking these multiple, coexisting narrative themes, the oncologists sustained an open vision of their work in which deficiencies and impotency were vindicated, and did not stand in the way of clinical practice.

Racial/ethnic identity is contingent and arbitrary, yet it is commonly used to evaluate disease risk and treatment response. Drawing on open-ended interviews with patients and clinicians in two US clinics, we explore how racialized risk is conceptualized and how it impacts patient care and experience. We found that racial/ethnic risk was a common but poorly defined construct for both patients and clinicians, who intermingled concepts of genetics, biology, behavior, and culture, while disregarding historical or structural context. We argue that racializing risk embodies social power in marked and unmarked bodies, reinforcing inequality along racial lines and undermining equitable health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]