Unwanted sexual activity among United States women early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Female sexual activity and, accordingly, birth rates tend to decline in times of stress, such as a pandemic. In addition, when resources are scarce or exogenous conditions are threatening, some women may engage in sexual activity primarily to maintain socioeconomic security. Having unwanted sex may indicate sexual activity in exchange for economic security. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe patterns and correlates of unwanted sex, defined as having sex more frequently than desired, among US women early in the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: The National US Women's Health COVID-19 Study was conducted in April 2020, using a nested quota sample design to enroll 3200 English-speaking women (88% cooperation rate) aged 18 to 90 years recruited from a research panel. The quota strata ensured sufficient sample sizes in sociodemographic groups of interest, namely, racial and ethnic subgroups. Patterns of sexual activity, including unwanted sex early in the pandemic, were described. To further elucidate the experiences of women reporting unwanted sex, open-ended responses to an item querying "how the coronavirus pandemic is affecting your sex life" were assessed using conventional content analysis. Logistic regression analyses-adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, self-reported health, and prepandemic health-related socioeconomic risk factors, including food insecurity, housing instability, utilities and transportation difficulties, and interpersonal violence-were used to model the odds of unwanted sex by a pandemic-related change in health-related socioeconomic risk factors. RESULTS: The proportion of women who were sexually active early in the pandemic (51%) was about the same as in the 12 months before the pandemic (52%), although 7% of women became active, and 7% of women became inactive. Overall, 11% of sexually active women were having unwanted sex in the early pandemic. The rates of anxiety, depression, traumatic stress symptoms, and each of the 5 health-related socioeconomic risk factors assessed were about 2 times higher among women having unwanted sex than other women (P<.001). Women having unwanted sex were also 5 times more likely than other women to report an increased frequency of sex since the pandemic (65% vs 13%; P<.001) and 6 times more likely to be using emergency contraception (18% vs 3%; P<.001). Women reporting unwanted sex commonly described decreased libido or interest in sex related to mood changes since the pandemic, having "more sex," fear or worry about the transmission of the virus because of sex, and having sex to meet the partner's needs. Among sexually active women, the odds of unwanted sex (adjusting for demographic, reproductive, and health factors) were higher among women with 1 prepandemic health-related socioeconomic risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.8) and 2 or more prepandemic health-related socioeconomic risk factors (adjusted odds ratio, 6.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-10.6). Among sexually active women with any prepandemic health-related socioeconomic risk factor, those with new or worsening transportation difficulties early in the pandemic were particularly vulnerable to unwanted sex (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.3). CONCLUSION: More than 1 in 10 sexually active US women was having unwanted sex early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Socioeconomically vulnerable women, especially those with new or worsening transportation problems because of the pandemic, were more likely than others to engage in unwanted sex. Pandemic response and recovery efforts should seek to mitigate unwanted sexual activity and related health and social risks among women.

Understanding Health-Related Social Risks.

Because of the established contribution of social factors to health outcomes, approaches that address upstream determinants of health have increasingly been recognized as cost-effective means to improve population health. Understanding and usage of precise terminology is important to facilitate collaboration across disciplines. Social determinants of health affect everyone, not just the socially and economically disadvantaged, whereas health-related social risks (HRSR) are specific adverse conditions at the individual or family level that are associated with poor health and related to the immediate challenges individuals face. Health-related social needs account for patient preference in addressing identified social risks. The use of validated screening tools is important to capture risk factors in a standardized fashion to support research and quality improvement. There is a paucity of studies that address HRSR in the context of radiology. This review provides an understanding of HRSR and outlines various ways in which radiologists can work to mitigate them.

Targeting Health-Related Social Risks in the Clinical Setting: New Policy Momentum and Practice Considerations.

The federal government is funding a sea change in health care by investing in interventions targeting social determinants of health, which are significant contributors to illness and health inequity. This funding power has encouraged states, professional and accreditation organizations, health care entities, and providers to focus heavily on social determinants. We examine how this shift in focus affects clinical practice in the fields of oncology and emergency medicine, and highlight potential areas of reform.

Process of Engaging Community and Scientific Partners in the Development of the CIRCL-Chicago Study Protocol.

Objectives: Hypertension affects 1 in 3 adults in the United States and disproportionately affects African Americans. Kaiser Permanente demonstrated that a "bundle" of evidence-based interventions significantly increased blood pressure control rates. This paper describes a multiyear process of developing the protocol for a trial of the Kaiser bundle for implementation in under-resourced urban communities experiencing cardiovascular health disparities during the planning phase of this biphasic award (UG3/UH3). Methods: The protocol was developed by a collaboration of faith-based community members, representatives from community health center practice-based research networks, and academic scientists with expertise in health disparities, implementation science, community-engaged research, social care interventions, and health informatics. Scientists from the National Institutes of Health and the other grantees of the Disparities Elimination through Coordinated Interventions to Prevent and Control Heart and Lung Disease Risk (DECIPHeR) Alliance also contributed to developing our protocol. Results: The protocol is a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study using a parallel cluster randomized trial to test the impact of practice facilitation on implementation of the Kaiser bundle in community health centers compared with implementation without facilitation. A central strategy to the Kaiser bundle is to coordinate implementation via faith-based and other community organizations for recruitment and navigation of resources for health-related social risks. Conclusions: The proposed research has the potential to improve identification, diagnosis, and control of blood pressure among under-resourced communities by connecting community entities and healthcare organizations in new ways. Faith-based organizations are a trusted voice in African American communities that could be instrumental for eliminating disparities.

A pilot mixed-methods randomized controlled trial of verbal versus electronic screening for adverse social determinants of health.

OBJECTIVES: Examining the social risks that influence the health of patients accessing emergency care can inform future efforts to improve health outcomes. The optimal modality for screening in the emergency department (ED) has not yet been identified. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the impact of screening modality on patient satisfaction with the screening process. METHODS: Patients were enrolled at a large urban academic ED and randomized to verbal versus electronic modalities following informed consent. Participants completed a short demographic survey, a brief validated health literacy test, and a social need and risk screening tool. Participants were purposively sampled to complete qualitative interviews balanced across 4 groups defined by health literacy scores (high vs limited) and screening modality. Quantitative outcomes included screening results and satisfaction with the screening process; qualitative questions focused on experience with the screening process, barriers, and facilitators to screening. RESULTS: Of 554 patients assessed, 236 were randomized (115 verbal, 121 electronic). Participants were 23% Hispanic, 6% non-Hispanic Black, 58% non-Hispanic White, 38% publicly insured, and 57% privately insured. Two-thirds (67%) identified social needs and risks and the majority (81%) reported satisfaction with the screening. Screening modality was not associated with satisfaction with screening process after adjustment for language, health literacy, and social risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.32, 1.71). CONCLUSION: Screening modality was not associated with overall satisfaction with screening process. Future strategies can consider the advantage of multimodal screening options, including the use of electronic tools to streamline screening and expand scalability and sustainability.