• Antonio Rojas-García, Daniel Holman, Laura Tinner, Stephanie Ejegi-Memeh, Yoav Ben-Shlomo, and Anthony A Laverty.
• Public Health Policy Evaluation, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK; Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
• Lancet. 2022 Nov 1; 400 Suppl 1: S58S58.

BackgroundIntersectionality theory suggests that multiple forms of inequality need to be considered simultaneously. The extent to which intersectionality has been used within interventional health research has not been systematically examined. This scoping review explores the use of intersectionality when designing and implementing interventions to reduce health inequalities, or when analysing the impact of these interventions.MethodsWe did a systematic search of MEDLINE and Scopus for articles published from inception up to June 30, 2021, with the key search terms "intersectionality", "interventions", and "public health". References were screened and those including use of intersectionality and primary data from high-income countries were included and relevant data synthesised. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines extension for scoping reviews.Findings2108 studies were screened, of which 12 met inclusion criteria Six (50%) of the 12 studies were qualitative and focused on alcohol and substance abuse (two studies), mental health (two studies), general health promotion (one study), and housing interventions (one study). The three quantitative studies (25%) examined mental health (two studies) and smoking cessation (one study), whereas the three mixed-methods studies (25%) examined mental health (two studies) and sexual exploitation (one study). Nine studies (75%) used intersectionality to analyse intervention effects, two studies (25%) used intersectionality for intervention design, and one study (8%) used intersectionality for both design and analysis of an intervention. Ethnicity and gender were the most commonly included axes of inequality (11 studies [92%]), followed by socioeconomic status (ten studies [83%]). Only four studies (33%) included consideration of LGBTQ+ individuals and only one (8%) considered physical disabilities.InterpretationIntersectionality theories are not yet commonly used in either the design or the evaluation of interventional health research, and evidence on the implementation of some key elements of intersectionality is still scarce. Studies on some conditions, such as mental health, have more often used intersectionality, whereas studies considering the LGBTQ+ community and individuals with physical disabilities as axes of inequality are particularly scarce.FundingNational Institute for Health and Care Research School for Public Health Research.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…