Legislative Health Notes: Preliminary Learnings From Piloting a New Policy Analysis Tool.

CONTEXT: In 2018, the Health Impact Project (the Project) developed and tested a new health in all policies (HiAP) tool called "legislative health notes" to provide state and local legislators with peer-reviewed evidence, public health data, and local data that illustrate potential positive and negative health and equity effects of proposed bills. OBJECTIVES: The Project sought to refine the health note methodology while piloting the tool in the Colorado and Indiana General Assemblies, and with the Council of the District of Columbia, and worked with affiliates to introduce them in North Carolina, Ohio, and California. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: External partners solicited feedback on health notes via semistructured interviews and surveys from legislators, legislative staff, and expert reviewers who were familiar with health notes in each of these jurisdictions. RESULTS: Respondents shared that health notes were nonpartisan, were easy for nonexperts to understand, and would be more effective if delivered earlier in the legislative process. CONCLUSION: In response to informant feedback, practitioners can explore adding high-level summaries, increasing focus on health equity implications and the potential to work with legislators during the policy formulation phase. Data from this pilot suggest that legislative health notes are a promising nonpartisan and standardized tool to better understand the health and equity implications of proposed legislation.

The PhenX Toolkit: Recommended Measurement Protocols for Social Determinants of Health Research.

Health disparities are driven by unequal conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age, commonly termed the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH). The availability of recommended measurement protocols for SDoH will enable investigators to consistently collect data for SDoH constructs. The PhenX (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures) Toolkit is a web-based catalog of recommended measurement protocols for use in research studies with human participants. Using standard protocols from the PhenX Toolkit makes it easier to compare and combine studies, potentially increasing the impact of individual studies, and aids in comparability across literature. In 2018, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities provided support for an initial expert Working Group to identify and recommend established SDoH protocols for inclusion in the PhenX Toolkit. In 2022, a second expert Working Group was convened to build on the work of the first SDoH Working Group and address gaps in the SDoH Toolkit Collections. The SDoH Collections consist of a Core Collection and Individual and Structural Specialty Collections. This article describes a Basic Protocol for using the PhenX Toolkit to select and implement SDoH measurement protocols for use in research studies. © 2024 The Authors. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Basic Protocol: Using the PhenX Toolkit to select and implement SDoH protocols.

TRansit ACessibility Tool (TRACT): Developing a novel scoring system for public transportation system accessibility.

Introduction: Although federal laws require equal access to public transportation for people with disabilities, access barriers persist. Lack of sharing accessibility information on public transportation websites restricts people with disabilities from making transportation plans and effectively using public transportation systems. This project aims to document information provided about public transportation systems accessibility and share this information using an open data platform. Methods: We reviewed the top twenty-six public transportation systems in the United States based on federal funding in fiscal year 2020. Information about accessibility was abstracted from each public transportation system website by two independent reviewers from February-March 2022. Informed by universal design principles, public transportation systems were scored across six dimensions: facility accessibility (0-22 points), vehicle accessibility (0-11 points), inclusive policies (0-12 points), rider accommodations (0-9 points), paratransit services (0-6 points), and website accessibility (0-2 points). Total scores were calculated as the sum of each dimension (0-62 points). Data and findings were publicly disseminated (https://disabilityhealth.jhu.edu/transitdashboard/). Results: The average overall accessibility information score was 31.9 (SD=6.2) out of 62 possible points. Mean scores were 8.4 (SD=2.9) for facility accessibility, 4.5 (SD=2.1) for vehicle accessibility, 7.8 (SD=1.6) for inclusive policies, 4.9 (SD=1.6) for rider accommodations, 4.5 (SD=2.0) for paratransit services, and 1.8 (SD=0.4) for website accessibility. Eleven public transportation systems (42%) received the maximum score for paratransit services and 20 (77%) received the maximum score for website accessibility. No public transportation system received the maximum score for any of the other dimensions. Conclusions: Using a novel scoring system, we found significant variation in the accessibility information presented on public transportation system websites. Websites are a primary mode where users obtain objective information about public transportation systems and are therefore important platforms for communication. Absence of accessibility information creates barriers for the disability community and restricts equal access to public transportation.

Inclusive and intersectoral: community health improvement planning opportunities to advance the social determinants of health and health equity.

BACKGROUND: Community health improvement plans (CHIPs) are strategic planning tools that help local communities identify and address their public health needs. Many local health departments have developed a CHIP, yet there is a lack of research on the extent to which these plans address root causes of health disparities such as the social determinants of health. This study aims to inventory the social determinants of health included in 13 CHIPs and examine facilitators and challenges faced by local health departments and partners when trying to include the social determinants of health. METHODS: We conducted a comparative plan evaluation by scoring 13 CHIPs on their inclusion of equity orientation, inclusive planning processes, and five social determinants of health: health care access and quality, the neighborhood and built environment, economic stability, social and community context, and education access and quality. To supplement the plan evaluation, we conducted 32 in-depth interviews with CHIP leaders and stakeholders to understand the factors contributing to the inclusion and exclusion of the social determinants of health in the planning process. RESULTS: CHIPs received an average score of 49/100 for the inclusion of the social determinants of health. Most plans addressed health care access and quality and the neighborhood and built environment, but they often did not address economic stability, the social and community context, and education access and quality. Regarding their overall equity orientation, CHIPs received an average score of 35/100, reflecting a relative lack of attention to equity and inclusive planning processes in the plans. Interviews revealed that challenges engaging partners, making clear connections between CHIPs and social determinants, and a lack of capacity or public and partner support often led to the exclusion of the social determinants of health. Recommendations to improve planning processes include improving data infrastructure, providing resources for dedicated planning staff and community engagement incentives, and centering equity throughout the planning process. CONCLUSIONS: Although local health departments can leverage CHIPs to improve population health and address health disparities, they face a range of challenges to including the social determinants of health in CHIPs. Additional resourcing and improved data are needed to facilitate broader inclusion of these determinants, and more work is needed to elevate equity throughout these planning processes.

Characterizing Organizational Health Equity Capacity Assessments for Public Health Organizations: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Organizational health equity capacity assessments (OCAs) provide a valuable starting point to understand and strengthen an organization's readiness and capacity for health equity. We conducted a scoping review to identify and characterize existing OCAs. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and practitioner websites to identify peer-reviewed and gray literature articles and tools that measure or assess health equity-related capacity in public health organizations. Seventeen OCAs met the inclusion criteria. We organized primary OCA characteristics and implementation evidence and described them thematically according to key categories. RESULTS: All identified OCAs assessed organizational readiness or capacity for health equity, and many aimed to guide health equity capacity development. The OCAs differed in regard to thematic focus, structure, and intended audience. Implementation evidence was limited. CONCLUSIONS: By providing a synthesis of OCAs, these findings can assist public health organizations in selecting and implementing OCAs to assess, strengthen, and monitor their internal organizational capacity for health equity. This synthesis also fills a knowledge gap for those who may be considering developing similar tools in the future.

Frontline work and racial disparities in social and economic pandemic stressors during the first COVID-19 surge.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the magnitude of racial-ethnic disparities in pandemic-related social stressors and examine frontline work's moderating relationship on these stressors. DATA SOURCES: Employed Californians' responses to the Institute for Governmental Studies (IGS) poll from April 16-20, 2020, were analyzed. The Pandemic Stressor Scale (PSS) assessed the extent to which respondents experienced or anticipated problems resulting from the inability to pay for basic necessities, job instability, lacking paid sick leave, unavailability of childcare, and reduced wages or work hours due to COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed-effects generalized linear models estimated (1) racial-ethnic disparities in pandemic stressors among workers during the first COVID-19 surge, adjusting for covariates, and (2) tested the interaction between race-ethnicity and frontline worker status, which includes a subset of essential workers who must perform their job on-site, to assess differential associations of frontline work by race-ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION: The IGS poll data from employed workers (n = 4795) were linked to the 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index at the zip code level (N = 1068). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The average PSS score was 37.34 (SD = 30.49). Whites had the lowest PSS score (29.88, SD = 26.52), and Latinxs had the highest (50.74, SD = 32.61). In adjusted analyses, Black frontline workers reported more pandemic-related stressors than White frontline workers (PSS = 47.73 vs. 36.96, p < 0.001). Latinxs reported more pandemic stressors irrespective of frontline worker status. However, the 5.09-point difference between Latinx frontline and non-frontline workers was not statistically different from the 4.6-point disparity between White frontline and non-frontline workers. CONCLUSION: Latinx workers and Black frontline workers disproportionately reported pandemic-related stressors. To reduce stress on frontline workers during crises, worker protections like paid sick leave, universal access to childcare, and improved job security are needed, particularly for those disproportionately affected by structural inequities, such as racially minoritized populations.

Structural Racism, Place, and COVID-19: A Narrative Review Describing How We Prepare for an Endemic COVID-19 Future.

Background: Place is a social determinant of health, as recently evidenced by COVID-19. Previous literature surrounding health disparities in the United States often fails to acknowledge the role of structural racism on place-based health disparities for historically marginalized communities (i.e., Black and African American communities, Hispanic/Latinx communities, Indigenous communities [i.e., First Nations, Native American, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian], and Pacific Islanders). This narrative review summarizes the intersection between structural racism and place as contributors to COVID-19 health disparities. Methods: This narrative review accounts for the unique place-based health care experiences influenced by structural racism, including health systems and services and physical environment. We searched online databases for peer-reviewed and governmental sources, published in English between 2000 and 2021, related to place-based U.S. health inequities in historically marginalized communities. We then narrate the link between the historical trajectory of structural racism and current COVID-19 health outcomes for historically marginalized communities. Results: Structural racism has infrequently been named as a contributor to place as a social determinant of health. This narrative review details how place is intricately intertwined with the results of structural racism, focusing on one's access to health systems and services and physical environment, including the outdoor air and drinking water. The role of place, health disparities, and structural racism has been starkly displayed during the COVID-19 pandemic, where historically marginalized communities have been subject to greater rates of COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Conclusion: As COVID-19 becomes endemic, it is crucial to understand how place-based inequities and structural racism contributed to the COVID-19 racial disparities in incidence and mortality. Addressing structurally racist place-based health inequities through anti-racist policy strategies is one way to move the United States toward achieving health equity.

Factors Associated with Universal Free School Meal Provision Adoption among US Public Schools.

BACKGROUND: The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows high-poverty schools participating in US Department of Agriculture meal programs to offer universal free school meals. Emerging evidence suggests benefits of CEP for student meal participation, behavior, and academic performance. Although CEP became available nationwide in 2014, in school year 2019-2020, one third of eligible schools were not participating. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates which school, district, and state factors are associated with CEP participation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study comparing CEP-participating with eligible nonparticipating schools to assess the relationship between CEP participation and school, district, and state factors. PARTICIPANTS: US public schools eligible for CEP in school year 2017-2018 (n = 42,813). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CEP participation. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Penalized regression variable selection methods to determine which factors contribute information to the model. Generalized logistic regression to predict odds of CEP participation unadjusted and adjusted for each factor in the full sample and in stratified analyses by whether a state was part of the CEP phase-in period (early vs late implementing states). RESULTS: In the full sample, adjusted odds of CEP participation were greater in states where CEP had been available longer (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34, 1.67). In late implementing states, adjusted odds of CEP participation were higher in schools with more students directly certified for free meals (OR in schools with 80%-89% vs 30%-39% directly certified: 19.32; 95% CI, 12.98, 28.76), Title I schools (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.55, 2.21), and urban schools (OR suburban vs urban, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36, 0.59). Differences by school level, enrollment, district size, student race/ethnicity, and geographic region also existed. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may help advocates, state agencies, and policymakers understand potential barriers to adoption and guide research exploring effective strategies to promote uptake. Future research should use qualitative and longitudinal designs to explore barriers to adoption, including cost and state and local policies.

The Effects of Play Streets on Social and Community Connectedness in Rural Communities.

Promoting physical activity (PA) is a long-standing public health initiative to improve overall health and wellbeing. Innovative strategies such as Play Streets, temporary activation of public spaces to provide safe places for active play, are being adopted in urban and rural communities to increase PA among children. As part of these strategies, aspects of social and community connectedness may be strengthened. This study analyzes focus groups and interviews from rural Play Street implementation team members (n = 14) as well as adults (n = 7) and children (n = 25) who attended Play Streets hosted in rural North Carolina, Maryland, Oklahoma, and Texas to better understand the added benefits of Play Streets in community connectedness. Overall, elements of social support and social cohesion are mentioned most frequently with instrumental and conditional support; however, concepts of social capital, collective-efficacy, and social identification are also presented. Participants expressed that Play Streets provided more than just PA; they provided opportunities to access and share resources, build perceptions of safety and trust in the community, and develop relationships with others. Fostering community connection through Play Streets may reduce health inequities in rural communities by building community resilience. Community-based PA programming that enhance and capitalize on community connectedness could be effective ways to improving the overall health and wellbeing of residents.

A Social-Return-On-Investment Analysis Of Bon Secours Hospital's 'Housing For Health' Affordable Housing Program.

Community health programs aimed at addressing the social determinants of health often face challenges demonstrating their impact through traditional economic evaluation methods of return-on-investment analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, or cost-benefit analysis. Using a social-return-on-investment (SROI) analysis, we evaluated the broader social, environmental, and economic benefits of Bon Secours Hospital's Housing for Health program, an affordable housing program aimed at addressing the social and environmental determinants affecting its community's health in Baltimore, Maryland. Bon Secours currently has 801 units of affordable housing across twelve properties in West Baltimore. Results indicate the significant social value of the Bon Secours affordable housing program, generating between $1.30 and $1.92 of social return in the community for every dollar in yearly operating costs. These findings suggest that broader access to affordable housing could produce a positive social value and demonstrate the relevance of SROI for quantifying the impacts of community health programs.

Recent Advances in Health Impact Assessment and Health in All Policies Implementation: Lessons from an International Convening in Barcelona.

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) are policy tools used to include health considerations in decision-making processes across sectors such as transportation, education, and criminal justice that can play a role in improving health and equity. This article summarizes proceedings from an international convening of HIA and HiAP experts held in July 2019 in Barcelona, Spain. The presentations and panel discussions included different models, best practices, and lessons learned, including from government, international banks, think tanks, and academia. Participants discussed ideas from around the world for cross-sector collaboration to advance health. The convening covered the following topics: community engagement, building greater understanding of and support for HiAP, and exploring how mandates for HIA and HiAP approaches may advance health and equity.

Impact of The Community Eligibility Provision of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act on Student Nutrition, Behavior, and Academic Outcomes: 2011-2019.

The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows high-poverty schools participating in US Department of Agriculture meal programs to offer universal free breakfast and lunch. Authorized as part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, CEP became available to eligible schools nationwide in 2014.Emerging evidence suggests that schools that provide universal free meals experience positive impacts on student nutrition, behavior, and academic performance. In particular, schools benefit from increased meal participation rates. There is mixed evidence of impacts on test scores and attendance, and limited but promising results showing improvements in weight outcomes, on-time grade promotion rates, disciplinary referrals, and food security.In this article, we summarize the growing evidence base and suggest policy approaches to increase the use of CEP by eligible schools.

Promoting equity at the population level: Putting the foundational principles into practice through disability advocacy.

Rehabilitation psychology is based on foundational principles that can guide us toward health equity among disabled and nondisabled communities. We summarize the literature on disparities in the disability community and underscore the urgency to address underlying inequities to eliminate disparities. We include examples of population-level interventions that promote equity in the disability community. We conclude with a call for a broader mission for rehabilitation psychologists based on the field's foundational principles, and outline emerging opportunities to widen our impact and advance equity. Our foundational principles, built on systems theory, call on rehabilitation psychologist to work at macrosystemic levels. As rehabilitation psychologists, we need to widen our focus from the micro (individual) to the macro (population) level. We need to bring the respect, dignity, and collaborative spirit that inspire our work with individuals to the broader community by advocating for structures and policies that promote equity for disabled persons. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Building evidence to reduce inequities in youth physical activity and obesity: Introduction to the Physical Activity Research Center (PARC) Special Section.

This guest editorial introduces the rationale and goals of the Physical Activity Research Center. It provides an overview of the five papers in this Special Section plus six commissioned studies intended to inform advocacy efforts.

Transforming City Streets To Promote Physical Activity And Health Equity.

Most US cities lack built environments that support physical activity, which is a key determinant of health. Making permanent changes to the physical environment to promote physical activity is not always feasible. Play Streets is a place-based intervention that is typically organized by local governments or community organizations and involves temporarily closing streets to create safe places and free opportunities for physical activity. In this descriptive study we examined 162 of Chicago's PlayStreets, held in the summer of 2018, to assess the volume and type of physical activity among youth participants and the variety of services provided to residents. We analyzed implementation data and forms completed after PlayStreets, and we conducted systematic observations at a purposeful sample of PlayStreets. We found that PlayStreets provides opportunities for youth physical activity in areas where opportunities do not otherwise always exist. PlayStreets also provides an avenue for residents to access community resources. This research on Chicago's experience with PlayStreets showed how one city is temporarily turning streets into places for youth physical activity to advance health equity. Local policies that facilitate temporarily closing streets and that provide resources to support opportunities for physical activity and access to community resources can advance health equity in cities nationwide.

Considering health and health disparities during state policy formulation: examining Washington state Health Impact Reviews.

BACKGROUND: As part of efforts to expand Health in All Policies (HiAP) in Washington State in the U.S., the Washington State Board of Health (BOH) received statutory authority in 2006 to conduct Health Impact Reviews (HIRs). HIRs analyze the potential impacts of proposed legislation and budget decisions on health and health disparities. Public health professionals who are aware of HIRs are interested in adopting a similar process in their states; however, there is limited information about HIRs, how they are perceived, and how they could advance HiAP. METHODS: This research involved a descriptive analysis of a sample of HIRs and semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 17 key informants. For the descriptive analysis, all HIRs requested or completed between January 1, 2007 and April 1, 2016 that had a request form submitted by a legislator or the governor that was available in the BOH's online database were reviewed. Information was collected on several variables including the bill number and title, sponsor and political affiliation, and the sector to which the bill or budgetary proposal pertained. A purposeful sample of legislators, staff, advocates, and lobbyists who were involved with HIRs during the study period were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Topic coding was used to identify key themes from the qualitative data. RESULTS: During the study period, 20 legislators requested 36 HIRs; 32 HIRs were completed. HIRs were requested for several bill topics, including education (11/36) and labor and employment (9/36). Legislators who requested HIRs felt they provided valuable data on health and health disparities for proposed bills. Individuals who were less supportive of HIRs perceived them as an advocacy or political tool. The main barrier to widespread use of HIRs in Washington was a lack of awareness among legislators. CONCLUSIONS: HIRs are one strategy to advance HiAP for state policy decisions. HIRs are a potentially effective tool for highlighting how legislative proposals and budgets positively and negatively impact health and health disparities. Future efforts should promote awareness and highlight shared benefits of HIRs among legislators and their staff, as well as their scientific integrity, methodological rigor, and objectivity.