J2
The examination of health or disease, healthcare and healthcare systems in spatial relations is well established. For example, during the Covid-19-pandemic the geographical distribution of Covid-19 incidences, regional disparities or health inequalities due to living or working conditions in disadvantaged areas were constantly communicated by scientists and media. Healthcare studies also focus on other spatial topics such as access to care (e.g. distances and travelling times to healthcare providers), how patients (literally) move through the health system, how workflows in hospitals can be better spatially organized, or how architecture can affect health recovery. This session aims at exploring spatial methods in healthcare research. In particular, we would like to discuss from a methodological perspective which theoretical assumptions of space are operationalized with what method and research design. Space can either be viewed as dependent or independent variable. Papers should answer at least one of the following questions either on a general methodological level or by a concrete example of a specific research project: (1) What are the most suitable spatial methods and research designs when analyzing the relationship of health / healthcare and space? (2) How is the research question addressing health and space issues affecting the type of data needed and vice versa? (3) How and where should data collection take place? (4) What (spatial) sampling strategies are applied and how does it affect the generalization of results? (5) What kind of data analysis method is best suited for such an endeavor? (6) What are other methodological challenges and/or solutions to spatial health questions that need to be discussed? (7) Who should be involved in the different stages of the research design, data collection, analysis, and reporting? We welcome papers addressing one or more of the following levels of healthcare research: individual level (i.e. patients, providers), organizational level (i.e. infrastructure, processes), or system level (i.e. governance, financing, development, transformation/change). We strongly believe that a multi- perspective view (i.e. from different disciplines, from different countries etc.) on this topic will inspire our work and will be very beneficial for the discussion.
—
J3
Many different studies can benefit from the usage of a mixed methods research approach. This approach establishes the foundation for the investigation by gathering both quantitative and qualitative data, fusing the two types of data, and employing various designs that could include philosophical presumptions and theoretical frameworks. The researcher uses convergent mixed methods to combine quantitative and qualitative data in order to provide a thorough study of the research problem. In most cases, the investigator gathers both types of data at or around the same time and then incorporates the data in the analysis of the overall findings. In this design, contradictions are clarified or investigated further. On the other hand, a researcher using an explanatory sequential mixed method design would first do quantitative research, analyze the findings, and then expand on the findings to provide a more thorough qualitative analysis. Because the qualitative data further explains the initial quantitative data results, it is regarded as explanatory. Because the initial quantitative phase is followed by the qualitative phase, it is regarded as sequential. Finally, the exploratory sequential mixed methods design follows the explanatory sequential design in reverse. The exploratory sequential technique starts with a qualitative research phase where the researcher examines the perspectives of participants. Following data analysis, the information is used to develop a second, quantitative phase. The qualitative phase can be used to create an instrument that is most appropriate for the sample being studied, to determine the best instruments to use in the follow-up quantitative phase, to create an intervention for an experiment, to design an app or website, or to specify the variables that must be included in a follow-up quantitative study. One strategy for preventing lifestyle diseases in the workplace is the explanatory sequential mixed approach design. It is possible to start by doing cross-sectional descriptive research (survey). After the survey data has been analyzed, department or division heads would participate in focus groups, and key informant interviews with the personnel of the cafeteria, sports department, and wellness programs would be conducted. This study’s qualitative phase’s goal is to offer in-depth data to complement the survey results. The cross-sectional descriptive study’s goal is to extrapolate the sample’s findings to a variety of demographics. The goal is to be able to confidently extrapolate population-level conclusions from the sample-level data. Because it is easier to extrapolate results from the study’s sampling group to a larger population, this research methodology was chosen consequently. Papers that have employed a mixed technique approach will be presented during this session. Other fields, such as social and spatial sciences, will be covered in addition to health.
—
J4
In the year 2030, more than two thirds of the world’s population will live in cities (UN 2016) where housing scarcity is most acute. Related issues of population size, population density, and diversity as well as the complexity of local coexistence (Vlahov et al. 2007, Freudenberg et al. 2005) additionally challenge the health of urban residents. Around the globe, housing is considered the determinant of health that can be most easily managed for improving public health (Freudenberg et al. 2005: 4). Affordable housing (Wetzstein 2017) has been shown to be associated with health conditions in urban regions around the globe. Housing affordability problems have intensified in recent years, putting some social groups in precarious positions (Dewilde 2022). Health hazards caused by insecure living conditions exist in all contexts and affect those who are worse-off in socioeconomic terms whilst others dwell in suburban mansions. Regarding the nexus housing affordability and health, there seem to be two disparate narratives tailored to the Global North and the Global South, each considering specific methodological implications. The growing urban districts of less affluent regions of the world, in particular slums of megacities, are known for issues of affordable housing and adverse health effects. Slums are characterized by “open sewers, stagnant water, rotting garbage, toxic dumpsites, an unstable landbase, shoddy housing, abandoned lots and buildings, unpaved roads, inadequate electricity, sanitation, schools, clinics, and other infrastructure (…)“ providing favorable conditions for the spread of disease and other health hazards (Birn et al. 2009). From a research point of view, field access is said to be complicated by lack of data, statistics, and infrastructure as well as setting heterogeneity and (personal) problems of many researchers from academic background (Nasreen and Kumar Singh 2020). Participatory research by people affected, practitioners, and researchers aware of their positionality is considered a fruitful solution. In metropolitan areas of the Global North, such as Los Angeles, Lisbon, Oslo, and Sydney, demand for housing is particularly high. Results are tight housing markets accompanied by rising rents and property prices, gaps in housing supply reflecting housing inequalities between affluent and less affluent citizens (Holm et al. 2021), as well as vacant housing (Beran/Nuissl 2019: 18), a decline in relocation mobility (Lebuhn et al. 2017), and associated displacement processes. In this context, housing precarities have been reported to result in health conditions (Swope/Hernández 2019) as well. Scientific efforts of studying housing affordability and health report barriers to field access like, i. a., social desirability, ethics considerations, data security protection, and property relations (Mete 2022). Participatory research is relatively scarce. Already the confrontation of the two basic narratives shows that there are common methodological barriers are, i.e., a lack of data, either by data security protection and social desirability or by administrative issues as well as potential for mutual learning, inspiration and orientation. The question about global methods for the study of housing affordability and health is essential as it is a global challenge to identify solutions for sustainable housing, especially for the urban poor (Smets 2016). There are pilot projects in many places of the world, but dissemination is scarce. Urban science explains the non-spread of innovations with the need for customized solutions as well as for acting upon principles such as “health in all policies”, equity and participation: Housing and health affect multiple realms of society, like economics, politics and culture, often represented by respective stakeholders. The confrontation of the two basic narratives shows, that scientific cultures of knowledge add to dissemination problems. At the same time, it is commonly acknowledged, that multiple perspectives require attention in the process of solution identification – a core competence of science, calling for attention in method selection. As scholars of participatory research with a profound interest in cross-cultural research, we are interested in discussing methodological approaches and innovative perspectives on the study of problem identification regarding issues of housing affordability and health that apply worldwide. Doing so, we wonder whether it is worthwhile to question the separation of the two basic narratives. Based on the suggestion that the unspoken common grounds of research on housing affordability and health may be a reproduction of hegemonial structures and that there is potential for common learning about solutions to be explored, we propose the session Global methods for the study of housing affordability and urban health. In the session, we aim to discuss projects, case reports or intervention/dissemination studies reflecting on narratives of global disparities regarding housing affordability and health, and related methodological challenges and chances. Therefore, we invite scholars to share methodological reflections on the study of housing affordability and health from settings around the globe in common reflections.