Peer-Reviewed Literature

While many populations struggle with health literacy, those who speak Spanish preferentially or exclusively, including Hispanic, immigrant, or migrant populations, may face particular barriers, as they navigate a predominantly English-language healthcare system. This population also faces greater morbidity and mortality from treatable chronic diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes. The aim of this systematic review was to describe existing health literacy interventions for patients with a Spanish-language preference and present their effectiveness.

This article highlights synergies between antiracist principles and community-based participatory research (CBPR), examines the potential for CBPR to promote antiracist research and praxis, illustrates structural barriers to antiracist CBPR praxis, and offers examples of CBPR actions taken to disrupt structural racism. It also provides recommendations for the next generation of antiracist CBPR.

In this essay, two women of Color researchers examine the intersections of race and disability and ask, ?What is the power and purpose of positioning and positionality statements?? Informed by Black feminist theory, and drawing from the DisCrit tenets of intersectional oppressions, historicity, and whiteness and ability as property, the authors focus on researchers? positioning in relation to how they engage and communicate knowledge about multiply marginalized people.

This expert roundtable focuses on how the disaggregation of data, especially race and ethnicity data, can improve equity.

The authors report on the Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) program, a D&I training program for postdoctoral or early-career cancer prevention and control scholars.

Structural racism has been and remains a fundamental cause of persistent health disparities in the United States. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and multiple others have been reminders that structural racism persists and restricts the opportunities for long, healthy lives of Black Americans and other historically disenfranchised groups. The American Heart Association has previously published statements addressing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk and disparities among racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but these statements have not adequately recognized structural racism as a fundamental cause of poor health and disparities in cardiovascular disease. This presidential advisory reviews the historical context, current state, and potential solutions to address structural racism in our country. Several principles emerge from our review: racism persists; racism is experienced; and the task of dismantling racism must belong to all of society. It cannot be accomplished by affected individuals alone. The path forward requires our commitment to transforming the conditions of historically marginalized communities, improving the quality of housing and neighborhood environments of these populations, advocating for policies that eliminate inequities in access to economic opportunities, quality education, and health care, and enhancing allyship among racial and ethnic groups. Future research on racism must be accelerated and should investigate the joint effects of multiple domains of racism (structural, interpersonal, cultural, anti-Black). The American Heart Association must look internally to correct its own shortcomings and advance antiracist policies and practices regarding science, public and professional education, and advocacy. With this advisory, the American Heart Association declares its unequivocal support of antiracist principles.

This review provides a characterization and conceptualization of community voice in health-oriented collaborations that provides a new theoretical basis for future research.

Increasing the accessibility of public and patient involvement (PPI) in health research for people from diverse backgrounds is important for ensuring all voices are heard and represented.

This paper provides recommendations on how to appropriately engage in scientific inquiry aimed at understanding racial health inequities. Race should not be used as a measure of biologic difference, but as a proxy for exposure to systemic racism.

The public health community in the United States has made a commitment
to ridding the nation of “racial” and ethnic health disparities. This commitment
was first articulated in February 1998 as the Initiative to Eliminate Racial and
Ethnic Health Disparities by the Year 2010,1 and has since been formalized in
the second of the two over-arching goals of Healthy People 2010.2 In order to
approach such an encompassing goal with any hope of success, we must seek to
understand and address the fundamental causes of these disparities.3
“Racial” health disparities are produced on at least three levels: Differential
care within the health care system, differential access to health care, and
differences in exposures and life opportunities that create different levels of
health and disease. “Racial” health disparities must therefore be addressed on
each of these levels.

Racial and ethnic disparities figure prominently intomuch of the analysis conducted by
policy research organizations in the US. But too often our organizations give short shrift to
the centuries of subjugation, discrimination, exclusion, and injustice that have produced
these inequities.

Drawing on field experience and scientific literature, we explore the connection between citizen science and Indigenous local knowledge and demonstrate approaches for how citizen science can generate useful knowledge while at the same time strengthening Indigenous local knowledge systems.

Given the significant nature of the Big Data (BD) and Big Data Analytics (BDA), this paper presents a state-of-the-art review that presents a holistic view of the BD challenges and BDA methods theorized/proposed/employed by organizations to help others understand this landscape with the objective of making robust investment decisions.

This article provides fourstrategies for how individuals and institutions can engage in anti-racism allyship: (1) be an upstander duringmicroaggressions, (2) be a sponsor and advocate for physicians of color, (3) acknowledge academic titles andaccomplishments, and (4) challenge the idea of a ??standard fit?? for academic faculty and research. Skills in aca-demic allyship should be taught toallphysicians throughout the educational continuum to mitigate feelings ofisolation that racialized minority physicians frequently experience.

Background: Multiple factors, including experiences with unethical research practices, have made some Indigenous groups in the United States and Canada reticent to participate in potentially beneficial health-related research. Yet, Indigenous peoples have also expressed a willingness to participate in research when certain conditions related to the components of data management?including data collection, analysis, security and storage, sharing, dissemination, and withdrawal?are met. A scoping review was conducted to better understand the terms of data management employed in healthrelated research involving Indigenous communities in the United States and Canada. Methods: PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science were searched using terms related to the populations and topics of interest. Results were screened and articles deemed eligible for inclusion were extracted for content on data management, community engagement, and community-level research governance. Results: The search strategy returned 734 articles. 31 total articles were extracted,
of which nine contained in-depth information on data management and underwent detailed extraction. All nine articles reported the development and implementation of data management tools, including research ethics codes, data-sharing agreements, and biobank access policies. These articles reported that communities were involved in activities and decisions related to data collection (n=7), data analysis (n=5), data-sharing (n=9), dissemination (n=7), withdrawal (n=4), and development of data management tools (n=9). The articles also reported that communities had full or shared ownership of (n=5), control over (n=9), access to (n=1), and possession of data (n=5). All nine articles discussed the role of community engagement in research and communitylevel research governance as means for aligning the terms of data management with the values, needs, and interests of communities. Conclusions: There is need for more research and improved reporting on data management in health-related research involving Indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada. Findings from this review can provide guidance for the identification of data management terms and practices that may be acceptable to Indigenous communities considering participation in health-related research.

The peer-review system is widely accepted and understood by the majority of researchers and trusted by policy makers. However, peer review has also been accompanied by criticism since it became the method of choice to assess the quality of science. Is it really an appropriate system for selecting the best people and the best ideas?

All research is guided by a set of philosophical underpinnings. Indigenous methodologies are in line with an Indigenous paradigm, while critical and liberatory methodologies fit with the transformative paradigm. Yet Indigenous and transformative methodologies share an emancipatory and critical stance and thus are increasingly used in tandem by both Western and Indigenous scholars in an attempt to decolonize methodologies, research, and the academy as a whole. However, these multiparadigmatic spaces only superficially support decolonization which, in the Canadian context of settler colonialism, is a radical and unsettling prospect that is about land, resources, and sovereignty. Applying this definition of decolonization to the decolonization of research paradigms, this article suggests that such paradigms must be developed, from scratch, conjointly between Indigenous and Western researchers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has inequitably impacted Indigenous communities in the United States. In this emergency state that highlighted existing inadequacies in US government and tribal public health infrastructures, many tribal nations contracted with commercial entities and other organization types to conduct rapid diagnostic and antibody testing, often based on proprietary technologies specific to the novel pathogen. They also partnered with public-private enterprises on clinical trials to further the development of vaccines. Indigenous people contributed biological samples for assessment and, in many cases, broadly consented for indefinite use for future genomics research. A concern is that the need for crisis aid may have placed Indigenous communities in a position to forego critical review of data use agreements by tribal research governances. In effect, tribal nations were placed in the unenviable position of trading short-term public health assistance for long-term, unrestricted access to Indigenous genomes that may disempower future tribal sovereignties over community members’ data. Diagnostic testing, specimen collection, and vaccine research is ongoing; thus, our aim is to outline pathways to trust that center current and future equitable relationship-building between tribal entities and public-private interests. These pathways can be utilized to increase Indigenous communities’ trust of external partners and share understanding of expectations for and execution of data protections. We discuss how to navigate genomic-based data use agreements in the context of pathogen genomics. While we focus on US tribal nations, Indigenous genomic data sovereignties relate to global Indigenous nations regardless of colonial government recognition.

Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use.

This article examines what it means to use equity as a guiding principle throughout the components and functions of a modern public health data system.

This commentary will interrogate the ways we as health services researchers pose our research questions, create methodological approaches, and interpret our findings, and serve as a disciplinary self-critique that will expose how our disciplinary practices are steeped in white supremacy.

Collaborative research networks are increasingly used as an effective mechanism for accelerating knowledge transfer into policy and practice. This paper explored the characteristics and collaborative learning approaches of nine health research networks.

This guidance is meant to facilitate conversations between researchers and patient partners about authorship and/or acknowledgement regarding research projects on which they collaborate.

This paper explores the rise & consequences of ?health equity tourism?, a phenomenon where previously unengaged investigators pivot into health equity research without developing the necessary scientific expertise for high-quality work.

This expert roundtable focuses on how the COVID-19 pandemic brought to light the serious and pervasive data gaps facing marginalized groups and what cross-cutting themes the panels found in their work.

Self-governance of science was supposed to mean freedom of inquiry, but it also ended up serving the business model of scientific publishers while undermining the goals of science policy.

Public research funding agencies and research organisations are increasingly accountable for the wider impacts of the research they support. While research impact assessment (RIA) frameworks and tools exist, little is known and shared of how these organisations implement RIA activities in practice.

In the 5 years since one of us published “#Black LivesMatter — A Challenge to the Medical and Public Health Communities” in the Journal, 1 we have seen a sea change in the recognition of racism as a durable feature of U.S. society and of its high cost in Black lives. Elected officials, corporate leaders, and academics alike use the slogan “Black Lives Matter,” which has also been widely adopted by members of the public, who by the millions protested the extrajudicial killing of George Floyd.2 With this change comes growing recognition that racism has a structural basis and is embedded in long-standing social policy. This framing is captured by the term “structural racism.

This article offers a simple, easy to remember framework for designing impactful research. We call this framework: ?The 7Cs of Impact? ? Context, Communities, Constituencies, Challenge, Channels, Communication and Capture.

This study discusses three ways in which implementation science can inform efforts to address disparities in COVID deaths: (1) quantify and understand disparities; (2) design equitable interventions; and (3) test, refine, and retest interventions

This article highlights methodological approaches that will move the field forward in its ability to validly measure structural racism for the purposes of achieving health equity

This 3 level framework is useful for raising new hypotheses about the basis of race-associated differences in health outcomes, as well as for designing effective interventions to eliminate those differences.

This commentary uses Black Feminism and Womanism (BFW) as epistemologies to critically address Black women’s health policy, building on the legacy of Black women’s experiences, theories, & knowledge production.

Despite decades of research exposing health disparities between populations and communities in the US, health equity goals remain largely unfulfilled. We argue these failures call for applying an equity lens in the way we approach data systems, from collection and analysis to interpretation and distribution. Hence, health equity requires data equity. There is notable federal interest in policy changes and federal investments to improve health equity. With this, we outline the opportunities to align these health equity goals with data equity by improving the way communities are engaged and how population data are collected, analyzed, interpreted, made accessible, and distributed. Policy priority areas for data equity include increasing the use of disaggregated data, increasing the use of currently underused federal data, building capacity for equity assessments, developing partnerships between government and community, and increasing data
accountability to the public.

We present the steps taken with a forward-looking perspective on the challenges laying ahead, in particular the necessary change of the rewards and incentives system for researchers (for which various actors are co-responsible and which goes beyond the mandate of the European Commission). Finally, we discuss the role of artificial intelligence (AI) within an open science perspective.

Objective: To describe the perception of professional climate in health services and policy research (HSPR) and efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the HSPR workforce and workplaces.Data source: We administered the HSPR Workplace Culture Survey online to health services and policy researchers. Study design: Our survey examined participants’ sociodemographic, educational, and professional backgrounds, their perception on DEI in HSPR, experience with DEI initiatives, feeling of inclusion, and direct and witnessed experiences of discrimination at their institutions/organizations. We calculated sample proportions of responses by gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and disability status and compared them with Fisher’s exact test. Data collection: We administered the survey online from July 28 to September 4, 2020. HSPR professionals and trainees aged 18 and older were eligible to participate. Analyses used complete cases only (n = 906; 70.6% completion rate). Principal findings: 53.4% of the participants did not believe that the current workforce reflects the diversity of communities impacted by HSPR. Although most participants have witnessed various DEI initiatives at their institutions/organizations, nearly 40% characterized these initiatives as “tokenistic.” Larger proportions of participants who identified as female, LGBQI+, underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, and those with a disability held this perception than their male, heterosexual, White, and non-disabled counterparts. Current DEI initiatives focused on “planning” activities (e.g., convening task forces) rather than “implementation” activities (e.g., establishing mentoring or network programs). 43.7% of the participants felt supported on their career development, while female, Black, Hispanic/Latino, LGBQI+ participants and those with a disability experienced discrimination at their workplace. Conclusions: Despite an increasing commitment to increasing the diversity of the HSPR workforce and improving equity and inclusion in the HSPR workplace, our results suggest that there is more work to be done to achieve such goals.

Critical appraisal tools developed by First Nations peoples are available to researchers and direct attention to the social, cultural, political and human rights basis of health research.

Beyond simply acknowledging the diversity of possible formats, attention must also be paid to visualisations? rhetorical capacity to convey arguments and ideas and motivate particular audiences in specific situations. This paper seeks to address this gap by analysing both the approaches and methods of argumentation used in two visual public engagement campaigns

This brief provides an overview of the origins of racial hierarchy, distinguishes between biological concepts ofrace and socially defined race, reviews perspectives on the meanings and uses of race, and describes ongoing andpotential efforts to address prevailing misunderstandings about race and racism.

While it is important for college and university senior administrators to embrace the traditional roles of their administrative positions, senior administrators interactions with students also shape institutional culture, students? engagement, and ultimately play a role in students’ motivation to succeed. This engagement is especially evident in the Historically Black College and University (HBCU) context as senior administrators’ engagement with students can directly or indirectly affect how students perceive themselves and their ability to succeed. This article aims to illuminate the role that HBCU senior level administrators play in students’ motivation toward success. We also highlight the notion that senior level administrator’s role in organizational culture ultimately led historically-disempowered Black women students toward success in even the most historically inaccessible pathways in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. The study used semi-structured interviews with 71 Black women STEM students across 10 HBCUs and asked questions to better understand how events in their lives and on their campuses shaped their choice to pursue and persist through a STEM degree program. The study found that the women were highly motivated by their HBCUs family-like community of support. Integral to this article, this support was not confined to professors and peers, but extended to senior administrators. We conclude that Black women STEM students’ perception of their ability to succeed and their motivation is influenced by the institution’s senior administration.

There is no standardized practice for collecting race, ethnicity, and tribal affiliation data. Across law enforcement, criminal legal, and social service systems, there is no uniform standard for collecting race and ethnicity data and few entities collect tribal affiliation.* Most data on American Indian and Alaska Native populations are collected and maintained by non-Indigenous entities including city, county, state, and federal entities that may have limited experience working with tribal and urban Indian communities. As a result, data can vary from non-existent to fragmented including missing data, inaccurate data, and unanalyzed data.

This article identifies where the technology and data sectors can contribute skills, expertise, and assets in support of innovative workforce models and augment the development of public health workforce competencies.

Using stories we collected from American Indian people who have experienced the results of racist policies, we describe historical trauma and its links to the health of American Indians and Alaska Natives.

This article summarizes some of the challenges around data sharing and reuse and identifies where the technology and data sectors can contribute to fill current gaps to promote interoperability and data stewardship.

Using a blend of personal narrative and insights from a 23-year career as a Black critical health equity researcher, I share 10 critical lessons for Black and other health equity researchers of color.

We provide recommendations on how to implement systems-level change and educational reform to infuse racial equity in future policy and practice for Asian American communities.

Health literacy (HL) is associated with short- and long-term health outcomes, and this is particularly relevant in Hispanics, who are disproportionally affected by lower HL. Hispanics have become the largest minority population in the United States. Also, Hispanics experience higher burdens of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) than non-Hispanic whites. Thus, effectively choosing culturally appropriate validated instruments that measure a marker found in health assessments should be a serious consideration. This article assesses study design and instrument structures of eight different HL and numeracy instruments to determine how HL was measured across studies.

This article summarizes what data should be included and identifies where the technology and data sectors can contribute to fill current gaps to measure equity, positive health, and well-being.

This study provides a recommended ?patient engagement translation table? that identifies evidence-based methods for meaningful patient engagement along a ten-step framework for continuous engagement.

If we seek to improve community and population health through effective interventions targeting social and environmental contexts, who will drive the change? On the basis of our experience in Durham County, North Carolina, we have learned that successful interventions must rely, at least in part, on stakeholders outside the public health and health care sectors, including those in business, education, philanthropy, nonprofit organizations, community development, and government.