Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41131948›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2025

Learning From Self-Care Practices Among Marginalised Women: Towards Embedding Health Justice in the UK Health Policy.

Agata Pacho, Rebecca E Glover

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Agata PachoDepartment of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0653-5095
Rebecca E GloverDepartment of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research PR-PRU-1217-20602
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-care is a recurring theme in health policy, frequently positioned as a means of reducing demand on overstretched healthcare systems. In the United Kingdom, the growing interest in self-care as a policy solution has been ascribed to the heightened prevalence of chronic illnesses, over 15 years of austerity and their interaction with neoliberalism. This article juxtaposes policy framing of self-care with how it is conceptualised, practised and experienced by women from racialised minorities and low-income households living in the United Kingdom-groups that routinely encounter structural barriers to healthcare access. This study centres marginalised communities, drawing on arguments that those in such positions hold epistemic advantage, as they often develop nuanced understandings of the social relations that shape their marginalisation. Through thematic analysis of focus groups and interviews, we identify two dominant ways women described and practised self-care: (1) as a response to systemic care scarcity in healthcare services, workplaces and intimate relationships, and (2) as a relational practice embedded within informal networks of support. Grounded in an intersectional analysis, we argue these practices challenge dominant narratives of self-care as an individualised responsibility. Recognising existing self-care labour in marginalised communities requires health policies that address structural inequalities rather than shift burdens onto already constrained individuals.

Indexed as

Health PolicySelf CareSocial JusticeSocial MarginalizationAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedMinority GroupsPovertyQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomAMRhealth policyself‐careurinary tract infections

Identifiers

PMID41131948
PMCPMC12550467

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.