Connect: Cultivating Academic-Community Partnerships to Address Our Communities' Complex Needs During Public Health Crises.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latino communities have been disproportionately impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 and we sought to understand perceptions and attitudes in four heavily impacted New Jersey counties to develop and evaluate engagement strategies to enhance access to testing. OBJECTIVE: To establish a successful academic/community partnership team during a public health emergency by building upon longstanding relationships and using principles from community engaged research. METHODS: We present a case study illustrating multiple levels of engagement, showing how we successfully aligned expectations, developed a commitment of cooperation, and implemented a research study, with community-based and health care organizations at the center of community engagement and recruitment. LESSONS LEARNED: This paper describes successful approaches to relationship building including information sharing and feedback to foster reciprocity, diverse dissemination strategies to enhance engagement, and intergenerational interaction to ensure sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates how academic/community partnerships can work together during public health emergencies to develop sustainable relationships.

Assessment of personal care product use and perceptions of use in a sample of US adults affiliated with a university in the Northeast.

Evidence supports unequal burdens of chemical exposures from personal care products (PCPs) among some groups, namely femme-identifying and racial and ethnic minorities. In this study, we implemented an online questionnaire to assess PCP purchasing and usage behaviors and perceptions of use among a sample of US adults recruited at a Northeastern university. We collected PCP use across seven product categories (hair, beauty, skincare, perfumes/colognes, feminine hygiene, oral care, other), and behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions of use and safety across sociodemographic factors to evaluate relationships between sociodemographic factors and the total number of products used within the prior 24-48 h using multivariable models. We also summarized participants' perceptions and attitudes. Among 591 adults (20.0% Asian American/Pacific Islander [AAPI], 5.9% Hispanic, 9.6% non-Hispanic Black [NHB], 54.6% non-Hispanic White [NHW], and 9.9% multiracial or other), the average number of PCPs used within the prior 24-48 h was 15.6 ± 7.7. PCP use was greater among females than males (19.0 vs. 7.9, P < 0.01) and varied by race and ethnicity among females. Relative to NHWs, AAPI females used fewer hair products (2.5 vs. 3.1) and more feminine hygiene products (1.5 vs. 1.1), NHB females used more hair products (3.8 vs. 3.1), perfumes (1.0 vs. 0.6), oral care (2.3 vs. 1.9), and feminine hygiene products (1.8 vs. 1.1), and multiracial or other females used more oral care (2.2 vs. 1.9) and feminine hygiene products (1.5 vs. 1.1) (P-values <0.05). Generally, study participants reported moderate concern about exposures and health effects from using PCPs, with few differences by gender, race, and ethnicity. These findings add to the extant literature on PCP use across sociodemographic characteristics. Improving the understanding of patterns of use for specific products and their chemical ingredients is critical for developing interventions to reduce these exposures, especially in vulnerable groups with an unequal burden of exposure.

Spatial variation of disinfection by-product concentrations: exposure assessment implications.

The use of public water system (PWS) average trihalomethane (THM) and haloacetic acid (HAA) concentrations as surrogates of "personal" exposures in epidemiological studies of disinfection by-products (DBPs) may result in exposure misclassification bias from various sources of measurement error including intra-system variation of DBPs. Using 2000-2004 data from 107 PWSs in Massachusetts, we assessed two approaches for characterizing DBP spatial variability by identifying PWSs with low spatial variability (LSV) and examining differences in LSV across DBP groups and by type of source water and primary disinfectant. We also used spatial differences to examine the association between THM concentrations and indices of social disadvantage; however, we found no correlations or statistically significant differences based on the available data. We observed similar patterns for the percentage of quarterly sampling dates with LSV across different types of source water for all DBPs but not across disinfectants. We found there was little overlap between sites classified as having LSV across different DBP groups. In the main analysis, we found moderate correlations between both approaches (φ(THM4) = 0.55; φ(BrTHM) = 0.64; φ(HAA5) = 0.67); although Method 1 (based on concentration differences between samples) may be better suited for identifying PWSs for inclusion in epidemiological studies because it is more easily adapted to study-specific exposure gradients than Method 2 (based on categorical exposure percentiles). These data reinforce the need to consider different exposure assessment approaches when examining the spatial variation of multiple DBP surrogates as they can represent different DBP mixtures.