Health Equity最新文献

Objectives: We aimed to describe conditions of confinement among people incarcerated in the United States during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using a community-science data collection approach.

Methods: We developed a web-based survey with community partners to collect information on confinement conditions (COVID-19 safety, basic needs, support). Formerly incarcerated adults released after March 1, 2020, or nonincarcerated adults in communication with an incarcerated person (proxy) were recruited through social media from July 25, 2020 to March 27, 2021. Descriptive statistics were estimated in aggregate and separately by proxy or formerly incarcerated status. Responses between proxy and formerly incarcerated respondents were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests based on α=0.05.

Results: Of 378 responses, 94% were by proxy, and 76% reflected state prison conditions. Participants reported inability to physically distance (≥6 ft at all times; 92%), inadequate access to soap (89%), water (46%), toilet paper (49%), and showers (68%) for incarcerated people. Among those receiving prepandemic mental health care, 75% reported reduced care for incarcerated people. Responses were consistent between formerly incarcerated and proxy respondents, although responses by formerly incarcerated people were limited.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a web-based community-science data collection approach through nonincarcerated community members is feasible; however, recruitment of recently released individuals may require additional resources. Our data obtained primarily through individuals in communication with an incarcerated person suggest COVID-19 safety and basic needs were not sufficiently addressed within some carceral settings in 2020-2021. The perspectives of incarcerated individuals should be leveraged in assessing crisis-response strategies.

Introduction: To understand how mixed-immigration status families-families with a mixture of people with and without documentation-in the United States (U.S.) fared during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this study highlights how health inequities were exacerbated during the height of the pandemic due to the implementation of anti-immigration policies such as Public Charge Rule, which stipulates that receiving public benefits is grounds for inadmissibility for immigrants seeking naturalization.

Methods: In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted over Zoom with 14 members of mixed-status families between February and April 2021. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using Atlas.ti. Using grounded theory, we assessed the level of awareness about Public Charge Rule and the health challenges these families faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results: Themes that emerged included financial problems, job insecurity, housing insecurity, food insecurity, mental health problems, distrust of government and health officials, and a fear of Public Charge Rule. We present a framework for understanding health inequities for mixed-status families during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discussion: Public Charge Rule caused fear and confusion for mixed-status families during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in individuals not receiving public benefits they urgently needed. This created heightened mental health problems due to job, housing, and food insecurity.

Health equity implications: We discuss how trust between mixed-status families and the government needs foundational rebuilding. In addition to streamlining the process for these families to apply for legal status, it is important to protect and support mixed-status families through programs and policies during public health emergencies.

Racial microaggressions, racially based remarks, or actions that negatively impact marginalized physicians of color (Black, Latino/a/x, and American Indian/Alaskan Natives) often go unaddressed. This article provides four strategies for how individuals and institutions can engage in anti-racism allyship: (1) be an upstander during microaggressions, (2) be a sponsor and advocate for physicians of color, (3) acknowledge academic titles and accomplishments, and (4) challenge the idea of a "standard fit" for academic faculty and research. Skills in academic allyship should be taught to all physicians throughout the educational continuum to mitigate feelings of isolation that racialized minority physicians frequently experience.

Objectives: To examine the prevalence and correlates of economic hardship and psychosocial distress experienced during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in a large cohort of Hispanic/Latino adults.

Methods: The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), an ongoing multicenter study of Hispanic/Latino adults, collected information about COVID-19 illness and psychosocial and economic distress that occurred during the pandemic (N=11,283). We estimated the prevalence of these experiences during the initial phase of the pandemic (May 2020 to May 2021) and examined the prepandemic factors associated with pandemic-related economic hardship and emotional distress using multivariable log linear models with binomial distributions to estimate prevalence ratios.

Results: Almost half of the households reported job losses and a third reported economic hardship during the first year of the pandemic. Pandemic-related household job losses and economic hardship were more pronounced among noncitizens who are likely to be undocumented. Pandemic-related economic hardship and psychosocial distress varied by age group and sex. Contrary to the economic hardship findings, noncitizens were less likely to report pandemic-related psychosocial distress. Prepandemic social resources were inversely related to psychosocial distress.

Conclusions: The study findings underscore the economic vulnerability that the pandemic has brought to ethnic minoritized and immigrant populations in the United States, in particular noncitizens. The study also highlights the need to incorporate documentation status as a social determinant of health. Characterizing the initial economic and mental health impact of the pandemic is important for understanding the pandemic consequences on future health. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02060344.

Background: Patients with language barriers suffer significant health disparities, including adverse events and poor health outcomes. While remote language services can help improve language access, these modalities remain persistently underused. The objective of this study was to understand clinician experiences and challenges using dual-handset interpreter telephones and to inform recommendations for future language access interventions.

Methods: We conducted four focus groups with nurses (N=14) and resident physicians (N=20) to understand attitudes toward dual-handset interpreter telephones in the hospital, including general impressions, effects on communication, situations in which they did and did not use them, and impact on clinical care. Three researchers independently coded all transcripts using a constant comparative approach, meeting repeatedly to discuss coding and to reconcile differences to reach consensus.

Results: We identified five salient themes, including increased language access (improved convenience, flexibility, and versatility of phones over in-person or ad hoc interpreters); effects on interpersonal processes of care (improved ability to communicate directly with patients); effects on clinical processes of care (improvements in critical patient care functions, including pain and medication management); impact on time (needing extra time for interpreted encounters and perceived delays impacting future use); and patients for whom, and circumstances in which, the dual-handset interpreter telephone is inadequate (e.g., complex discussions, hands-on instruction, or multiple speakers are present).

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that clinicians value dual-handset interpretation in bridging communication barriers and highlight recommendations to guide future implementation interventions to increase the uptake of remote language services in hospital settings.

As a foundational pillar of the Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation framework, Narrative Change involves reckoning with our historical and current realities regarding "race" and racism, uprooting dominant narratives that normalize injustice and sustain oppression, and advancing narratives that promote equity and collective liberation. Narrative Change is vital to creating communal recognition and appreciation of the interconnectedness and equality of all humans and dismantling the ideology and structures of racial hierarchy. Telling new or more truthful and complete stories must include improving our understanding and messaging about what race is and what it is not as well as the relationship between race and racism. Ideas about the existence of biological human races have long been discredited by scientists and scholars in various fields. Yet, false beliefs about natural and fixed biological differences within the human species persist in some scientific studies, in aspects of health care, and in the political and legal architectures of the United States and other countries, thereby reproducing and maintaining social hierarchies. Efforts to eradicate racism and its pernicious effects are limited in their potential for sustained positive transformation unless simultaneous endeavors are undertaken to reframe people's thinking about the very concept of race. This brief provides an overview of the origins of racial hierarchy, distinguishes between biological concepts of race and socially defined race, reviews perspectives on the meanings and uses of race, and describes ongoing and potential efforts to address prevailing misunderstandings about race and racism.

Introduction: Health care disparities based on race/ethnicity and sex can be found in a variety of settings. Our aim is to determine if there are disparities in treatment provided to Indiana Medicaid enrollees who have medically documented opioid use.

Study data and methods: We used Medicaid reimbursement claims data to extract patients who were diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) or had other medical event related to opioid use between January 2018 and March 2019. We used a two-proportion Z-test to verify the difference in the proportion of treatment provided between population subgroups. The study was approved by the Purdue University Institutional Review Board (2019-118).

Study results: Over the study period, there were 52,994 Indiana Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with OUD or documentation of another opioid related event. Only 5.41% of them received at least one type of treatment service (detoxification, psychosocial, medication assisted treatment, or comprehensive).

Discussion: Although Medicaid began covering treatment services for enrollees with an OUD in Indiana at the start of 2018, very few received evidence-based services. Men and White enrollees with an OUD were in general more likely to receive services compared to women and non-White enrollees.

In this narrative review, we describe historical and contemporary influences that prevent patients with fibroids from getting appropriate medical care. Using patient stories as examples, we highlight how misogyny on all levels hurts patients and prevents medical teams from doing their best. Importantly, inequity and disparities result in massive gaps in care delivery. We suggest that we, as gynecologists and surgeons, must join public discourse on this topic to highlight the inadequacies of care delivery and the reasons behind it, suggest potential solutions, and join patients and communities in formulating and implementing remedies.

This commentary calls for a shift in the identification, analysis, and treatment of disparities in pain management. We provide context and research that summarize social and structural determinants that contribute to disparities across multiple levels of the pain management continuum. Informed by the evidence, we provide guideposts for mitigating disparities in the assessment, diagnosis, and care provided to those experiencing pain, with a focus on highlighting the specific needs of marginalized communities and the importance of culturally appropriate and context-specific approaches to pain management. This commentary informs efforts to promote equity by identifying areas of concern, guiding interventions, and advocating for policies that aim to eliminate disparities in pain treatment. Researchers, health care providers, and organizations can collectively work to provide equitable culturally sensitive pain management and improve overall patient outcomes.