Anti-Asian racism related stigma, racial discrimination, and protective factors against stigma: a repeated cross-sectional survey among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, reports of anti-Asian American or Pacific Islander (AAPI) hate have increased in the United States. Institutions of higher education provide a unique opportunity to examine COVID-19 related stigma and protective factors in AAPI young adults enrolled in college. Objective: The goal of this research was to examine COVID-19 related stigma among a diverse college student population. We posited that AAPI students experience more racial discrimination, internalized stigma, and/or anticipated racial discrimination than other students. We also sought to identify protective behavioral factors against stigma. Methods: This study includes data from a repeated cross-sectional survey that was administered among college students at a large public university in the United States in April (n = 1,359) and November 2020 (n = 1,196). All university enrolled students with an active email account were eligible to participate in the online survey, which included questions about COVID-19 stigma (anticipated, enacted, internalized), stigma resistance, sources of COVID-19 information, lifestyle behaviors, and sociodemographic information. Binary logistic regression models were utilized to assess differences in stigma between race and ethnic groups and to identify factors associated with stigma. Results: AAPI students were more likely to experience all three types of stigma compared to other race and ethnic groups. AAPI students in both waves were at least 2 times more likely to experience enacted stigma and 7.3 times more likely to experience anticipated stigma in the earlier wave compared to non-Hispanic White students. Students who had experienced enacted stigma were more likely to experience anticipated stigma, and those who experienced enacted and anticipated stigma were more likely to experience internalized stigma. Higher education level, living with neighbors/roommates, maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and thinking positively about oneself may act as protective factors against different types of stigma. Conclusion: AAPI students have a greater risk of experiencing COVID-19 stigma compared to those from other race and ethnic groups. Universities should combat anti-AAPI sentiments and COVID-19 stigma and promote public health efforts to build resistance against the negative effects of stigma.

Use of Community-Engaged Research Approaches in Clinical Interventions for Neurologic Disorders in the United States: A Scoping Review and Future Directions for Improving Health Equity Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests a significant prevalence of race and ethnic disparities in the United States among people with neurologic conditions including stroke, Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD), Parkinson disease (PD), epilepsy, spinal cord injury (SCI), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Recent neurologic research has begun the paradigm shift from observational health disparities research to intervention research in an effort to narrow the disparities gap. There is an evidence base that suggests that community engagement is a necessary component of health equity. While the increase in disparities focused neurologic interventions is encouraging, it remains unclear whether and how community-engaged practices are integrated into intervention design and implementation. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize intervention studies that have actively engaged with the community in the design and implementation of interventions to reduce disparities in neurologic conditions and to describe the common community engagement processes used. METHODS: Two databases, PubMed and CINAHL, were searched to identify eligible empirical studies within the United States whose focus was on neurologic interventions addressing disparities and using community engagement practices. RESULTS: We identified 392 disparity-focused interventions in stroke, ADRD, PD, epilepsy, SCI, and TBI, of which 53 studies incorporated community engagement practices: 32 stroke studies, 15 ADRD, 2 epilepsy studies, 2 PD studies, 1 SCI study, and 1 TBI study. Most of the interventions were designed as randomized controlled trials and were programmatic in nature. The interventions used a variety of community engagement practices: community partners (42%), culturally tailored materials and mobile health (40%), community health workers (32%), faith-based organizations and local businesses (28%), focus groups/health need assessments (25%), community advisory boards (19%), personnel recruited from the community/champions (19%), and caregiver/social support (15%). DISCUSSION: Our scoping review reports that the proportion of neurologic intervention studies incorporating community engagement practices is limited and that the practices used within those studies are varied. The major practices used included collaboration with community partners and utilization of culturally tailored materials. We also found inconsistent reporting and dissemination of results from studies that implemented community engagement measures in their interventions. Future directions include involving the community in research early and continuously, building curricula that address challenges to community engagement, prioritizing the inclusion of community engagement reporting in peer-reviewed journals, and prioritizing and incentivizing research of subpopulations that experience disparities in neurologic conditions.

Estimated seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among adults in Orange County, California.

Clinic-based estimates of SARS-CoV-2 may considerably underestimate the total number of infections. Access to testing in the US has been heterogeneous and symptoms vary widely in infected persons. Public health surveillance efforts and metrics are therefore hampered by underreporting. We set out to provide a minimally biased estimate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among adults for a large and diverse county (Orange County, CA, population 3.2 million). We implemented a surveillance study that minimizes response bias by recruiting adults to answer a survey without knowledge of later being offered SARS-CoV-2 test. Several methodologies were used to retrieve a population-representative sample. Participants (n = 2979) visited one of 11 drive-thru test sites from July 10th to August 16th, 2020 (or received an in-home visit) to provide a finger pin-prick sample. We applied a robust SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Microarray technology, which has superior measurement validity relative to FDA-approved tests. Participants include a broad age, gender, racial/ethnic, and income representation. Adjusted seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 11.5% (95% CI: 10.5-12.4%). Formal bias analyses produced similar results. Prevalence was elevated among Hispanics (vs. other non-Hispanic: prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.47, 95% CI 1.22-1.78) and household income < $50,000 (vs. > $100,000: PR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.79). Results from a diverse population using a highly specific and sensitive microarray indicate a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of ~ 12 percent. This population-based seroprevalence is seven-fold greater than that using official County statistics. In this region, SARS-CoV-2 also disproportionately affects Hispanic and low-income adults.