Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38110942›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal for equity in health2023

Utilising quantitative methods to study the intersectionality of multiple social disadvantages in women with common mental disorders: a systematic review.

Nadia Alhamd Alghamdi, Kirsty Dunn, Deborah Cairns, Craig Melville

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal for equity in health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Association Between Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) and Mental Health Status in the US.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nadia Alhamd AlghamdiInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Kirsty DunnInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Deborah CairnsInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Craig MelvilleInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. craig.melville@glasgow.ac.uk.
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women are at greater risk of common mental disorders. The intersectionality concept provides a framework to examine the effects of multiple social disadvantages on women's mental health. We conducted a systematic review to collect and analyse information to identify the quantitative methodologies and study designs used in intersectional research to examine women's mental health and multiple social disadvantages. Included studies used accepted statistical methods to explore the intersectional effects of gender and one or more types of social disadvantage from the PROGRESS-Plus inequity framework: a place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/ sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital (O'Neill et al. J Clin Epidemiol 67:56-64, 2014). The scope of this systematic review was limited to studies that analysed common mental disorders in women and men comparatively. Studies focusing on only one gender were excluded, ensuring a comprehensive comparative analysis of the intersection of social disadvantages in mental health.Twelve papers were included in the narrative synthesis (Table 1). Eight of the included papers (67%) reported an intersectional effect of gender and one or more additional types of social disadvantage. The multiplicative effect of gender and socioeconomic status on the risk of common mental disorders was the most commonly reported interaction. This systematic review shows that multiplicative and simultaneous interactions of multiple social disadvantage increase the risk of common mental disorders experienced by women. Moreover, it underlines the potential for quantitative research methods to complement qualitative intersectionality research on gender and mental health. The findings of this systematic review highlight the importance of multiple social disadvantage in understanding the increased risk of mental health experienced by women.

Indexed as

Intersectional FrameworkMental DisordersEthnicityFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthSocial ClassGender/sexIntersectionalityMental health disorderSocial disadvantage

Identifiers

PMID38110942
PMCPMC10729432
OpenAlexW4389887740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.