Investing, Leading, Building, and Ending the HIV Epidemic: The PoWER of Collaborative Learning for Community-Based Organizations in the South.

The PoWER Series is the Emory COMPASS Coordinating Center's (ECCC) most intensive strategy for assisting organizations with transforming organizational practice, improving systems and operations, and ensuring data-driven service outcomes. COMPASS Coordinating Center's partners who have completed PoWER have developed the infrastructure of their organization, increased their knowledge, secured additional funding, and developed new partnerships.

Changing Narratives and Provoking Dialogue: An Analysis of the HIV Stigma and Faith Summit.

GLAAD in partnership with the Gilead COMPASS Initiative® Coordinating Centers conducted a three-day summit to address the HIV epidemic in the Southern region of the United States. The summit featured virtual panel discussions with HIV experts, faith leaders, community advocates, and entertainers to bring about conversation and change around HIV stigma.

The POWER of LEARNing and LEADing Together: Shared Learning Communities.

Southern community-based organizations often lack adequate resources to implement high-quality, culturally appropriate HIV programs and services. Shared learning communities (SLCs) combine in-depth training, tailored coaching, and peer-to-peer learning to strengthen HIV programs and services. This paper describes five SLCs, participant characteristics, and their capacity-building components.

Popular Culture and Shaping HIV Perception.

The Gilead COMPASS Initiative® used celebrity partnerships to highlight HIV prevalence in the Southern U.S. and support Southern HIV and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) organizations. Using various media platforms, HIV organizations engaged with popular culture in collaboration with national media advocacy and public relations organizations to campaign against stigmatization and raise awareness about HIV.

Southern Care: A Rapid Response to Supporting Southern CBOs at the onset of COVID-19.

Southern community-based and HIV/AIDS service organizations (CBOs) were particularly vulnerable to the onset of COVID-19 due to already fragile infrastructures and underfunded budgets. At the height of the pandemic, the Gilead COMPASS Coordinating Centers launched the Southern CARE Grant, awarding 41 grants to provide supplemental operational support funds.

Kiosk versus in-person screening for alcohol and drug use in the emergency department: patient preferences and disclosure.

INTRODUCTION: Annually eight million emergency department (ED) visits are attributable to alcohol use. Screening ED patients for at-risk alcohol and substance use is an integral component of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment programs, shown to be effective at reducing substance use. The objective is to evaluate ED patients' acceptance of and willingness to disclose alcohol/substance use via a computer kiosk versus an in-person interview. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study. Eligible participants included those who presented to walk-in triage, were English-speaking, ≥18 years, were clinically stable and able to consent. Patients had the opportunity to access the kiosk in the ED waiting room, and were approached for an in-person survey by a research assistant (9am-5pm weekdays). Both surveys used validated assessment tools to assess drug and alcohol use. Disclosure statistics and preferences were calculated using chi-square tests and McNemar's test. RESULTS: A total of 1,207 patients were screened: 229 in person only, 824 by kiosk, and 154 by both in person and kiosk. Single-modality participants were more likely to disclose hazardous drinking (p=0.003) and high-risk drug use (OR=22.3 [12.3-42.2]; p<0.0001) via kiosk. Participants who had participated in screening via both modalities were more likely to reveal high-risk drug use on the kiosk (p=0.003). When asked about screening preferences, 73.6% reported a preference for an in-person survey, which patients rated higher on privacy and comfort. CONCLUSION: ED patients were significantly more likely to disclose at-risk alcohol and substance use to a computer kiosk than an interviewer. Paradoxically patients stated a preference for in-person screening, despite reduced disclosure to a human screener.

Effect of face-to-face interview versus computer-assisted self-interview on disclosure of intimate partner violence among African American women in WIC clinics.

African American women in the United States report intimate partner violence (IPV) more often than the general population of women. Overall, women underreport IPV because of shame, embarrassment, fear of retribution, or low expectation of legal support. African American women may be especially unlikely to report IPV because of poverty, low social support, and past experiences of discrimination. The purpose of this article is to determine the context in which low-income African American women disclose IPV. Consenting African American women receiving Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) services in WIC clinics were randomized to complete an IPV screening (Revised Conflict Tactics Scales-Short Form) via computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) or face-to-face interview (FTFI). Women (n = 368) reported high rates of lifetime and prior-year verbal (48%, 34%), physical (12%, 7%), sexual (10%, 7%), and any (49%, 36%) IPV, as well as IPV-related injury (13%, 7%). Mode of screening, but not interviewer race, affected disclosure. Women screened via FTFI reported significantly more lifetime and prior-year negotiation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 10.54, 3.97) and more prior-year verbal (aOR = 2.10), sexual (aOR = 4.31), and any (aOR = 2.02) IPV than CASI-screened women. African American women in a WIC setting disclosed IPV more often in face-to-face than computer screening, and race-matching of client and interviewer did not affect disclosure. Findings highlight the potential value of face-to-face screening to identify women at risk of IPV. Programs should weigh the costs and benefits of training staff versus using computer-based technologies to screen for IPV in WIC settings.