April 2-4, 2020 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Intersectionality and Interdisciplinarity in Health Communication Research
Intersectionality and Interdisciplinarity in Health Communication Research
Abstract: Cross-national Coverage of Mental Health Services: Community Structure Theory and "Buffered" Privilege
Community structure theory (Pollock, 2007, 2013a, 2013b, 2015) was used to compare cross-national newspaper coverage of access to mental health services in leading newspapers, one per country, in 14 countries, analyzing articles of 250+ words from 09/16/09 to 09/16/19. The resulting 231 total articles were coded for “prominence” and “direction” (“government responsibility,” “society responsibility,” or “balanced/neutral” coverage) and combined into composite “Media Vector” scores for each newspaper (range 0.3827 to -0.0111, a total range of 0.3938). A majority, 12 of 14 (85.71%), of Media Vectors registered “government responsibility” for access to mental health services.
Overall, measures of privilege were robustly connected to coverage supporting government responsibility for increasing access to mental health services. It was expected that higher privilege levels (populations “buffered” from uncertainty) would be associated with coverage emphasizing government responsibility (Pollock, 2007, pp. 61-100). This hypothesis was confirmed. Measures of broadband subscriptions per 100 people in a nation (r = 0.54, p = 0.023), literacy rate (r = 0.492, p = 0.037), and hospital beds per 100,000 people in a nation (r = 0.451, p = 0.053), were significantly connected with coverage emphasizing government responsibility for increasing access to mental health services. Of the non-significant results, nine of ten measures of privilege were also “positively” and “directionally” consistent with the major “buffered” privilege pattern. A regression analysis revealed that broadband subscriptions per 100 people in a nation (40.9% of the variance), together with literacy rate (16.5%), accounted for 57.4% of the variance. collectively associated with media emphasis on government responsibility to increase access to mental health services. Finding that measures of “privilege” are linked to reporting emphasizing “government” responsibility for human rights claims parallels previous research on cross-national coverage of human trafficking (Alexandre, et al., 2014, 2015) and HIV/AIDS treatment access (Etheridge, et al., 2014, 2015).
Contrary to prediction , a “violated vulnerability” pattern was also encountered. (Vulnerable demographics can be associated with less media support for government responsibility for human rights claims, perhaps because of lack of trust in government or because immediate personal concerns outweigh broader social issues.) Specifically, military spending as a percentage of GDP was associated with “less” media emphasis on government responsibility for access to mental health services (26.8% of the variance), as were, consistently, 11 non-significant vulnerability measures “directionally” mirroring the “violated vulnerability” pattern.
Empirically, measures of “privilege” — broadband subscriptions per 100 people in a nation, literacy rate, and hospital beds per 100,000 people - were closely linked to cross-national media emphasis on “government” responsibility for increasing access to mental health services. Methodologically, combining measures of both “prominence” and “direction” generated highly sensitive Media Vectors that highlighted the capacity of the media to reflect community measures of “privilege” and “violated vulnerability.” From a theoretical perspective, this access to mental health services study confirmed an empirical finding by one of the founders of “agenda-setting” theory, urging that agenda-setting’s “top-down” perspective is robustly complemented by the “bottom-up” viewpoint of community structure theory’s indicators of community-level demographics (Funk & McCombs,
Overall, measures of privilege were robustly connected to coverage supporting government responsibility for increasing access to mental health services. It was expected that higher privilege levels (populations “buffered” from uncertainty) would be associated with coverage emphasizing government responsibility (Pollock, 2007, pp. 61-100). This hypothesis was confirmed. Measures of broadband subscriptions per 100 people in a nation (r = 0.54, p = 0.023), literacy rate (r = 0.492, p = 0.037), and hospital beds per 100,000 people in a nation (r = 0.451, p = 0.053), were significantly connected with coverage emphasizing government responsibility for increasing access to mental health services. Of the non-significant results, nine of ten measures of privilege were also “positively” and “directionally” consistent with the major “buffered” privilege pattern. A regression analysis revealed that broadband subscriptions per 100 people in a nation (40.9% of the variance), together with literacy rate (16.5%), accounted for 57.4% of the variance. collectively associated with media emphasis on government responsibility to increase access to mental health services. Finding that measures of “privilege” are linked to reporting emphasizing “government” responsibility for human rights claims parallels previous research on cross-national coverage of human trafficking (Alexandre, et al., 2014, 2015) and HIV/AIDS treatment access (Etheridge, et al., 2014, 2015).
Contrary to prediction , a “violated vulnerability” pattern was also encountered. (Vulnerable demographics can be associated with less media support for government responsibility for human rights claims, perhaps because of lack of trust in government or because immediate personal concerns outweigh broader social issues.) Specifically, military spending as a percentage of GDP was associated with “less” media emphasis on government responsibility for access to mental health services (26.8% of the variance), as were, consistently, 11 non-significant vulnerability measures “directionally” mirroring the “violated vulnerability” pattern.
Empirically, measures of “privilege” — broadband subscriptions per 100 people in a nation, literacy rate, and hospital beds per 100,000 people - were closely linked to cross-national media emphasis on “government” responsibility for increasing access to mental health services. Methodologically, combining measures of both “prominence” and “direction” generated highly sensitive Media Vectors that highlighted the capacity of the media to reflect community measures of “privilege” and “violated vulnerability.” From a theoretical perspective, this access to mental health services study confirmed an empirical finding by one of the founders of “agenda-setting” theory, urging that agenda-setting’s “top-down” perspective is robustly complemented by the “bottom-up” viewpoint of community structure theory’s indicators of community-level demographics (Funk & McCombs,