No abstract

Recent analyses of responses to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have posited that men’s dismissive attitudes toward the risks of the virus reflect their attempts to conform to masculine norms that valorize bravery and strength. In this article, the authors develop an alternative account of the gender differences in attitudes toward COVID-19. Drawing on three waves of in-depth interviews with college students and members of their households ( n = 45) over a period of 16 weeks (for a total of 120 interviews), the authors find that men and women in comparable circumstances perceive similar risks of COVID-19, but they diverge in their attitudes toward, and responses to, these risks. Connecting scholarship on gender and care work with research on risk, the authors argue that gender differences in attitudes toward risk are influenced by the unique and strenuous care work responsibilities generated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which are borne primarily by women—and from which men are exempt.

PurposeState Health Agencies (SHAs) have developed public health genomics (PHG) programs that play an instrumental role in advancing precision public health, but there is limited research on their approaches. This study examines how PHG programs attempt to mitigate or forestall health disparities and inequities in the utilization of genomic medicine.MethodsWe compared PHG programs in three states: Connecticut, Michigan, and Utah. We analyzed 85 in-depth interviews with SHA internal and external collaborators and program documents. We employed a qualitative coding process to capture themes relating to health disparities and inequities.ResultsEach SHA implemented population-level approaches to identify individuals who carry genetic variants that increase risk of hereditary cancers. However, each SHA developed a unique strategy—which we label public health action repertoires—to reach specific subgroups who faced barriers in accessing genetic services. These strategies varied across states given demographics of the state population, state-level partnerships, and availability of healthcare services.ConclusionOur findings illustrate the imperative of tailoring PHG programs to local demographic characteristics and existing community resources. Furthermore, our study highlights how integrating genomics into precision public health will require multilevel, multisector collaboration to optimize efficacy and equity.

In the past decade, healthcare delivery has faced two major disruptions: the mapping of the human genome and the rise of evidence-based practice. Sociologists have documented the paradigmatic shift towards evidence-based practice in medicine, but have yet to examine its effect on other health professions or the broader healthcare arena. This article shows how evidence-based practice is transforming public health in the United States. We present an in-depth qualitative analysis of interview, ethnographic, and archival data to show how Michigan's state public health agency has navigated the turn to evidence-based practice, as they have integrated scientific advances in genomics into their chronic disease prevention programming. Drawing on organizational theory, we demonstrate how they managed ambiguity through a combination of sensegiving and sensemaking activities. Specifically, they linked novel developments in genomics to a long-accepted public health planning model, the Core Public Health Functions. This made cutting edge advances in genomics more familiar to their peers in the state health agency. They also marshaled state-specific surveillance data to illustrate the public health burden of hereditary cancers in Michigan, and to make expert panel recommendations for genetic screening more locally relevant. Finally, they mobilized expertise to help their internal colleagues and external partners modernize conventional public health activities in chronic disease prevention. Our findings show that tools and concepts from organizational sociology can help medical sociologists understand how evidence-based practice is shaping institutions and interprofessional relations in the healthcare arena.

No abstract