Analyze

Drawing on a long career as a Black critical health equity researcher, Bowleg quotes Black feminist Audre Lorde in arguing that the “master’s tools”—in order words, conventional theories and methods—"will never dismantle the master’s house”—intersectional structures of oppression from which health inequities are produced. Bowleg elaborates by explaining that conventional theories and methods “valorize almost exclusively individualistic and social cognitive approaches (Cochran & Mays, 1993; Weber & Parra-Medina, 2003); ignore the foundational roots of structural and intersectional inequality (Bowleg, 2012, 2020); center White, Western, cisgender male, middle-class, and heterosexual people and their experiences as normative (Henrich et al., 2010); prioritize amelioration, not transformation (Fox et al., 2009a); and view Black people primarily through the lens of deficit or pathology” (237).

Thus Bowleg offers 10 critical lessons for Black and other health equity researchers of color that she links with system and structural-level strategies. Bowleg also cautions that these lessons are risky and could damage one’s academic career—but that it is exactly this kind of risk that is necessary for change. Among these include: embrace critical perspectives, embrace a critical qualitative stance, learn research paradigms (e.g. positivist paradigm = a master’s tool, must learn to counter), foster community-based partnerships and collaborations, and highlight black communities’ strengths, assets, and acts of resistance. Bowledge also encourages researchers to “tell it like it is”: “Epistemological ignorance is one of the master’s most formidable tools. Epistemologies of ignorance refer to the examination of different types of ignorance and their production, maintenance, and functions (Sullivan & Tuana, 2007)” (239). Here, Bowleg emphasizes the importance of language by discussing how it can alternatively reveal or obscure structures of oppression as well as it shapes the nature of research.

This study examined the risk of acquiring Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) by healthcare workers in the setting of general hospitals and isolation units. By looking retrospectively at the Ebola Outbreak in Sierra Leone, the relative levels of risk to healthcare workers were computed and compared. The reasoning for these levels was also examined through interviews of surviving workers and the families/associates/colleagues of the deceased workers. The interviews reviewed common actions (and lack there of) for affected workers. This revealed certain themes that should be visited when reveising/creating hospital infection prevention and control policies.

In the case of this study, the vulnerable population examined was healthcare workers in Sierra Leone during the outbreak. These workers were found to be at a significant level of risk for transmission for a number of reasons. These include proximity to the virus (due to the occupation), lack of training in the area of infection control, and cultural factors (such as prevalence of self-medication and home management of illness). Nurses as a whole were most affected, with over half of the infected members. 

The data acquired in this study can be used not only for improvement in policies and training for healthcare workers, but also to examine the risk factors for the disease. One example is the age and gender disparities in those nfected. These could be explained by the typical age and gender of healthcare workers, but could also show a trend in risk when coupled with patient data. The data on the districts and their infection rates can be used to help pinpoint the origin of infection. 

The study was published in BMC Infectious Diseases, a peer-reviewed journal on the prevention, diagnoisis, and management of infectious disease. The journal seems to be genrally well respected.

This was a retrospective study. While not the most accurate and well supported way to conduct a study, due to the effects of recall bias, it was really the only way to gain the data that was presented in the report. There isn't really anything new about the style of research. 

At least one further study has been conducted using this data. A more focussed paper on the Kenema District in Sierra Leone was written, addressing the staggering number of cases with infected healthcare workers. The paper is titled "Facors Underlying Ebola Virus Infection Among healthcare Workers, Kenema, Sierra Leone, 2014-2015."  The paper reached similar conlusions as the original one, with a need for better practices in infection control and prevention. 

The study was funded by the WHO Country Office for Sierra leone.