Community-Centered Assessment to Inform Pandemic Response in Georgia (US).

The Georgia Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) Against COVID-19 Disparities Project conducts community-engaged research and outreach to address misinformation and mistrust, to promote inclusion of diverse racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials and increase testing and vaccination uptake. Guided by its Community Coalition Board, The GEORGIA CEAL Survey was administered among Black and Latinx Georgia 18 years and older to learn about community knowledge, perceptions, understandings, and behaviors regarding COVID-19 testing and vaccines. Survey dissemination occurred using survey links generated through Qualtrics and disseminated among board members and other statewide networks. Characteristics of focus counties were (a) highest proportion of 18 years and older Black and Latinx residents; (b) lowest COVID-19 testing rates; and (c) highest SVI values. The final sample included 2082 surveyed respondents. The majority of participants were men (57.1%) and Latinx (62.8%). Approximately half of the sample was aged 18-30 (49.2%); the mean age of the sample was 33.2 years (SD = 9.0), ranging from 18 to 82 years of age. Trusted sources of COVID-19 information that significantly predicted the likelihood of vaccination included their doctor/health care provider (p-value: 0.0054), a clinic (p-value: 0.006), and university hospitals (p-value: 0.0024). Latinx/non-Latinx, Blacks vs. Latinx, Whites were significantly less likely to get tested and/or vaccinated. Non-Latinx, Blacks had higher mean knowledge scores than Latinx, Whites (12.1 vs. 10.9, p < 0.001) and Latinx, Blacks (12.1 vs. 9.6, respectively, p < 0.001). The mean knowledge score was significantly lower in men compared to women (10.3 vs. 11.0, p = 0.001), in those who had been previously tested for COVID-19 compared to those who had never been tested (10.5 vs. 11.5, respectively, p = 0.005), and in those who did not receive any dose of vaccination compared to those who were fully vaccinated (10.0 vs. 11.0, respectively, p < 0.001). These data provide a benchmark for future comparisons of the trajectory of public attitudes and practices related to the COVID-19 pandemic. They also point to the importance of tailoring communication strategies to specific cultural, racial, and ethnic groups to ensure that community-specific barriers to and determinants of health-seeking behaviors are appropriately addressed.

Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.

Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer review data from 312,740 biological sciences manuscripts across 31 studies to (1) examine evidence for differential peer review outcomes based on author demographics, (2) evaluate the efficacy of solutions to reduce bias and (3) describe the current landscape of peer review policies for 541 ecology and evolution journals. We found notably worse review outcomes (for example, lower overall acceptance rates) for authors whose institutional affiliations were in Asia, for authors whose country's primary language is not English and in countries with relatively low Human Development Indices. We found few data evaluating efficacy of interventions outside of reducing gender bias through double-blind review or diversifying reviewer/editorial boards. Despite evidence for review outcome gaps based on author demographics, few journals currently implement policies intended to mitigate bias (for example, 15.9% of journals practised double-blind review and 2.03% had reviewer guidelines that mentioned social justice issues). The lack of demographic equity signals an urgent need to better understand and implement evidence-based bias mitigation strategies.