Addressing anti-Black racism within public health in North America: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The syndemic that is COVID-19 and the disproportionate policing of Black communities have recently generated mass social consciousness of the anti-Black racism (ABR) pervading health, social, and cultural institutions. However, little is known about the implementation of public health measures addressing ABR in an evolving pandemic context. The objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of public health initiatives undertaken to address ABR across North American jurisdictions between December 2019 and June 2022. METHODS: A search for public health initiatives was conducted in June 2021 across MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSChost, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and Google.ca. Included initiatives were those focussing on Black, African diasporic, or African American communities in the North American context. Community-led action, as well as initiatives in primary healthcare care, academic journals, and those broadly focused on racialized communities, were excluded from this review. SYNTHESIS: Seventy-five articles were included in this review, suggesting that ABR emerged as a public health priority. Strategies and action plans to address structural ABR were the most common types of initiatives observed (n = 21), followed by programs or interventions (n = 16), budget allocations or investments (n = 8), task forces (n = 7), guidance and recommendations for organizational capacity (n = 8), action-oriented declarations of ABR as a public health crisis (n = 8), and legislation and mandates (n = 7). Initiatives were largely cross-cutting of two or more socioeconomic themes (n = 23), while organizational change was also common (n = 16). Gaps in the current literature include a lack of community participation and outcome measurement for actions identified, which limit institutional accountability to communities of interest. CONCLUSION: This research provides insights on public health accountability to social justice. This research outlines activities in upstream interventions, organizational transformation, and resource allocation in shaping anti-racist change, and require evaluation and input from those whom initiatives are intended to serve.

Effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. The aim is to inform and improve capacity building interventions. METHODS: Four strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; 2) reference lists of included papers; 3) key informant consultation; and 4) grey literature searching. Inclusion (e.g., published in English) and exclusion criteria (e.g., non-English language papers published earlier than 2005) are outlined with included papers focusing on capacity building, learning plans, or professional development plans within public health and related settings, such as non-governmental organizations, government, or community-based organizations relating to public health or healthcare. Outcomes of interest included changes in knowledge, skill or confidence (self-efficacy), changes in practice (application or intent), and perceived support or supportive environments, with outcomes reported at the individual, organizational or systems level(s). Quality assessment of all included papers was completed. RESULTS: Fourteen papers were included in this review. These papers reported on six intervention types: 1) internet-based instruction, 2) training and workshops, 3) technical assistance, 4) education using self-directed learning, 5) communities of practice, and 6) multi-strategy interventions. The available literature showed improvements in one or more capacity-building outcomes of interest, mainly in terms of individual-level outcomes. The available literature was moderate in quality and showed a range of methodological issues. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to inform capacity building programming and how interventions can be selected to optimize impact. Organizations should carefully consider methods for analysis of capacity building interventions offered; specifically, through which mechanisms, to whom, and for which purpose. Capacity-building interventions can enhance knowledge, skill, self-efficacy (including confidence), changes in practice or policies, behaviour change, application, and system-level capacity. However in applying available evidence, organizations should consider the outcomes of highest priority, selecting intervention(s) effective for the outcome(s) of interest. Examples are given for selecting intervention(s) to match priorities and context, knowing effectiveness evidence is only one consideration in decision making. Future evaluations should: extend beyond the individual level, assess outcomes at organizational and systems levels, include objective measures of effect, assess baseline conditions, and evaluate features most critical to the success of interventions.

Theories, models and frameworks used in capacity building interventions relevant to public health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on capacity building interventions that include theoretical foundations. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify underlying theories, models and frameworks used to support capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. The aim is to inform and improve capacity building practices and services offered by public health organizations. METHODS: Four search strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; 2) reference lists of included papers; 3) key informant consultation; and 4) grey literature searching. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined with included papers focusing on capacity building, learning plans, professional development plans in combination with tools, resources, processes, procedures, steps, model, framework, guideline, described in a public health or healthcare setting, or non-government, government, or community organizations as they relate to healthcare, and explicitly or implicitly mention a theory, model and/or framework that grounds the type of capacity building approach developed. Quality assessment were performed on all included articles. Data analysis included a process for synthesizing, analyzing and presenting descriptive summaries, categorizing theoretical foundations according to which theory, model and/or framework was used and whether or not the theory, model or framework was implied or explicitly identified. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were included in this review. A total of 28 theories, models and frameworks were identified. Of this number, two theories (Diffusion of Innovations and Transformational Learning), two models (Ecological and Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation) and one framework (Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning) were identified as the most frequently cited. CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies specific theories, models and frameworks to support capacity building interventions relevant to public health organizations. It provides public health practitioners with a menu of potentially usable theories, models and frameworks to support capacity building efforts. The findings also support the need for the use of theories, models or frameworks to be intentional, explicitly identified, referenced and for it to be clearly outlined how they were applied to the capacity building intervention.

COVID-19 vaccine equity: a retrospective population-based cohort study examining primary series and first booster coverage among persons with a history of immigration and other residents of Ontario, Canada.

Introduction: Immigrants were disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and experience unique vaccination barriers. In Canada (37 million people), 23% of the population is foreign-born. Immigrants constitute 60% of the country's racialized (non-white) population and over half of immigrants reside in Ontario, the country's most populous province. Ontario had several strategies aimed at improving vaccine equity including geographic targeting of vaccine supply and clinics, as well as numerous community-led efforts. Our objectives were to (1) compare primary series vaccine coverage after it was widely available, and first booster coverage 6 months after its availability, between immigrants and other Ontario residents and (2) identify subgroups experiencing low coverage. Materials and methods: Using linked immigration and health administrative data, we conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study including all community-dwelling adults in Ontario, Canada as of January 1, 2021. We compared primary series (two-dose) vaccine coverage by September 2021, and first booster (three-dose) coverage by March 2022 among immigrants and other Ontarians, and across sociodemographic and immigration characteristics. We used multivariable log-binomial regression to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRR). Results: Of 11,844,221 adults, 22% were immigrants. By September 2021, 72.6% of immigrants received two doses (vs. 76.4%, other Ontarians) and by March 2022 46.1% received three doses (vs. 58.2%). Across characteristics, two-dose coverage was similar or slightly lower, while three-dose coverage was much lower, among immigrants compared to other Ontarians. Across neighborhood SARS-CoV-2 risk deciles, differences in two-dose coverage were smaller in higher risk deciles and larger in the lower risk deciles; with larger differences across all deciles for three-dose coverage. Compared to other Ontarians, immigrants from Central Africa had the lowest two-dose (aRR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.58-0.61]) and three-dose coverage (aRR = 0.36 [95% CI 0.34-0.37]) followed by Eastern Europeans and Caribbeans, while Southeast Asians were more likely to receive both doses. Compared to economic immigrants, resettled refugees and successful asylum-claimants had the lowest three-dose coverage (aRR = 0.68 [95% CI 0.68-0.68] and aRR = 0.78 [95% CI 0.77-0.78], respectively). Conclusion: Two dose coverage was more equitable than 3. Differences by immigrant region of birth were substantial. Community-engaged approaches should be re-invigorated to close gaps and promote the bivalent booster.

Provincial implementation supports for socio-demographic data collection during COVID-19 in Ontario's public health system.

SETTING: The Ontario government implemented a regulatory change to mandate the collection of socio-demographic (SD) data for individuals who tested positive for COVID-19. This change was informed by evidence of COVID-19's disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and calls for broader collection of SD data. Given the scarcity of similar efforts, there is a significant knowledge gap around implementing standardized SD data collection in public health settings. INTERVENTION: Public Health Ontario provided collaborative support for the implementation of SD data collection, grounded in health equity principles, evidence, and best practices. We supported the addition of SD fields in Ontario's COVID-19 data collection systems, issued data entry guidance, hosted webinars for training and learning exchange, and published a resource to support the data collection process. The current focus is on building sustainability and quality improvement through continued engagement of public health units. OUTCOMES: By November 28, 2020, almost 80% of COVID-19 cases had information recorded for at least one SD question (individual questions, range 46.8-67.0%). We hosted three webinars for the field, and the data collection resource was viewed almost 650 times. Practitioners continue to express needs for support on applying equity principles to data analysis and interpretation, and community engagement on data collection and use. IMPLICATIONS: Sharing knowledge on responsive implementation supports in collaboration with the field and using current evidence and guidance will strengthen public health practice for SD data collection. Laying this groundwork will also improve the likelihood of success and sustainability of these equity-focused efforts.

RéSUMé: LIEU: Le gouvernement de l'Ontario a appliqué une modification réglementaire exigeant la collecte de données sociodémographiques (SD) sur les personnes testées positives pour la COVID-19. Cette modification découle des preuves de l'impact disproportionné de la COVID-19 dans les populations marginalisées et appelle à une collecte élargie des données SD. Comme les démarches similaires sont rares, il y a de grandes lacunes au sujet de la mise en œuvre de la collecte de données SD standardisées dans les milieux de la santé publique. INTERVENTION: Santé publique Ontario a collaboré à la mise en œuvre d'une collecte de données SD ancrée dans les principes, les données probantes et les pratiques exemplaires de l'équité en santé. Nous avons appuyé l'ajout de champs SD dans les systèmes ontariens de collecte de données sur la COVID-19, fourni des orientations sur la saisie des données, organisé des webinaires de formation et d'échange de connaissances et publié un document à l'appui du processus de collecte de données. La priorité est actuellement accordée au renforcement de la durabilité et à l'amélioration de la qualité grâce à la participation continue des bureaux de santé publique. RéSULTATS: Au 28 novembre 2020, pour près de 80 % des cas de COVID-19, il existait des informations sur au moins une question SD (questions individuelles, intervalle de 46,8 à 67,0 %). Nous avions organisé trois webinaires pour le personnel de terrain, et notre document sur la collecte de données avait été consulté près de 650 fois. Les praticiens continuent à nous demander de l'aide pour appliquer les principes d'équité à l'analyse et à l'interprétation des données et pour faire participer les communautés à la collecte et à l'utilisation des données. CONSéQUENCES: Le partage des connaissances sur les supports de mise en œuvre adaptés, en collaboration avec le terrain et en faisant appel aux connaissances et aux orientations actuelles, renforcera la collecte de données SD dans la pratique en santé publique. En posant ces bases, nous améliorons aussi les chances de réussite et la durabilité de ces démarches axées sur l'équité.