ABSTRACT
Persistent health disparities within the U.S. indicate that members of minoritized groups experience disproportionately worse physical and mental health outcomes than their majority counterparts. One proposed approach to mitigate these disparities is employing identity-targeted interventions—interventions that are subtly or more explicitly directed toward a particular social group and aim to encourage healthcare engagement and increase feelings of inclusion. As one example, clinicians might provide pro-diversity statements that express their interest in working with racially diverse patient populations to enhance racially minoritized patients’ sense of inclusion. However, while some of these interventions effectively achieve their goals, others can inadvertently harm inclusion and undermine engagement with health messaging. In this review, we describe the theoretical rationale for employing different types of identity-targeted interventions in health contexts and identify the conditions under which these interventions are likely to yield benefits for intended populations (vs backfire). Moreover, we delineate key mechanisms that have been shown to underlie these relationships. We conclude with a discussion of several remaining theoretical gaps and important directions for future research. Understanding the effectiveness of identity-targeted interventions, including their boundary conditions, is critical for informing practices that can be used to mitigate health disparities.