[Futuregen] very rough idea re indicators study, WP3

[Stefan Fors]

Hej everyone,

Unlike Ricardo, I’ve not commented on the proposal in detail - but here are my initial thoughts and concerns:


  1.  My main concern is still with the feasibility of the study in terms of the time and resources needed. I’m currently working on two surveys that (hopefully) will be conducted in Sweden during the spring – and it has taken a fair amount of time, money, and work to get to this point with both. Developing the questionnaire, informational material, ethical vetting, drawing a sample, etc. I have a hard time seeing how we would be able to do this, analyse the data and write papers on the results within our time and resource constraints. Especially if it is to be an international survey.



  1.  Although I think the topic is very interesting and worthwhile, I’m still not entirely sure of how we would analyse it and what we would learn from it. I was not quite sure what to make of the lists of odds ratios in the Peersman paper. I guess we could use some kind of decomposition method to see how much of the sex differences in e.g. care receiving that could be attributed to gendered differences in the factors considered when answering the questions – but chances are that would leave us with another black box of mostly “unexplained variance”. Anyways, I would like to hear more about your ideas as to how we would analyse the data, and what we would learn from it.



  1.  I was also wondering if there aren’t ways of using already collected data to analyse these kinds of questions (not exhaustively by any means, but partly): To what extent can sex differences in SRH be attributed to the presence of chronic diseases? Are there gendered differences in the socioeconomic correlates of education (e.g. do men with higher education also have higher incomes and more wealth)? To what extent can sex differences in ‘generic’ answers on care be explained by the actual tasks that are being conducted? I’m not sure to what extent this has already been done – or to what extent the necessary data is available in the data sets we have access to. I also realize that this would partly answer different questions than the proposed survey would – but it is something that could be started instantly.


Anyways, those were my initial thoughts. I look forward to discussing this further with you.

All the best,

Stefan


Från: Futuregen <futuregen-bounces at euro.centre.org> För Ricardo Rodrigues
Skickat: den 9 februari 2021 14:37
Till: futuregen at euro.centre.org
Ämne: Re: [Futuregen] very rough idea re indicators study, WP3

Dear Susan,

Thank you very much for this and for the Peersman paper you attached.
I think your general idea really addresses the issue of indicators or definitions of health, care and even SES from a gender perspective. In other words very much in line with what we aimed to do in FutureGEN. Plus, I like the ideas you propose too.
I added some comments, which I realize that at this early stage are likely to be contradictory here and there. :)

Two main questions from me at this stage:
i) Managing the complexity of assessing misclassification of SES AND health at the same time, in an international study/context. I like both ideas, but wonder if it will be feasible. I added some comments.
ii) Methods: I think what you want to capture may be too complex to be fully described by quantitative methods alone. Even before reading Peersman, I was thinking that this would be very suitable for a qualitative study, or at least a mixed-methods approach (perhaps a slightly even more sophisticated one that Peersman).

Hope the comments help!
Best wishes,
Ricardo

On 26/01/2021 15:53, Susan Phillips wrote:
Hi everyone,

I am attaching preliminary thoughts about this study. I have done a more thorough, although not a comprehensive literature search and have only found one paper that attempts to define whether women and men see indicators differently. This could mean we have something to contribute but also could mean that the idea has not been seen as important and isn't. Of course I favour the first!

I have also done more investigating about Sensemaker and am inclined to think it is more of a gimmick than a research tool and that we could just use a survey. Janet and I will talk more about this today.

Please do read and critique if you have a chance and I hope we can talk about this at our next meeting.

Susan


--
Susan Phillips MD, CCFP
Rosser Research Chair, Professor, and Research Director
Director: Centre for Studies in Primary Care
Director QuARMS
Queen's U. Family Medicine
220 Bagot St,
Kingston K7L 5E9, ON, Canada





När du skickar e-post till Karolinska Institutet (KI) innebär detta att KI kommer att behandla dina personuppgifter. Här finns information om hur KI behandlar personuppgifter<https://ki.se/medarbetare/integritetsskyddspolicy>.


Sending email to Karolinska Institutet (KI) will result in KI processing your personal data. You can read more about KI’s processing of personal data here<https://ki.se/en/staff/data-protection-policy>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.euro.centre.org/pipermail/futuregen/attachments/20210209/5d535c95/attachment-0001.html>