The Association of Reported Experiences of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Health Care with COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Intent - United States, April 22, 2021-November 26, 2022.

In 2021, the CDC Director declared that racism is a serious threat to public health,* reflecting a growing awareness of racism as a cause of health inequities, health disparities, and disease. Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19-related hospitalization and death (1,2) illustrate the need to examine root causes, including experiences of discrimination. This report describes the association between reported experiences of discrimination in U.S. health care settings and COVID-19 vaccination status and intent to be vaccinated by race and ethnicity during April 22, 2021-November 26, 2022, based on the analysis of interview data collected from 1,154,347 respondents to the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM). Overall, 3.5% of adults aged ≥18 years reported having worse health care experiences compared with persons of other races and ethnicities (i.e., they experienced discrimination), with significantly higher percentages reported by persons who identified as non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) (10.7%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) (7.2%), non-Hispanic multiple or other race (multiple or other race) (6.7%), Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) (4.5%), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) (3.9%), and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (2.8%) than by non-Hispanic White (White) persons (1.6%). Unadjusted differences in prevalence of being unvaccinated against COVID-19 among respondents reporting worse health care experiences than persons of other races and ethnicities compared with those who reported that their health care experiences were the same as those of persons of other races and ethnicities were statistically significant overall (5.3) and for NHOPI (19.2), White (10.5), multiple or other race (5.7), Black (4.6), Asian (4.3), and Hispanic (2.6) adults. Findings were similar for vaccination intent. Eliminating inequitable experiences in health care settings might help reduce some disparities in receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Declaring Racism a Public Health Crisis in the United States: Cure, Poison, or Both?

Declaring racism a public health crisis has the potential to shepherd meaningful anti-racism policy forward and bridge long standing divisions between policy-makers, community organizers, healers, and public health practitioners. At their best, the declarations are a first step to address long standing inaction in the face of need. At their worst, the declarations poison or sedate grassroots momentum toward anti-racism structural change by delivering politicians unearned publicity and slowing progress on health equity. Declaring racism as a public health crisis is a tool that must be used with clarity and caution in order to maximize impact. Key to holding public institutions accountable for creating declarations is the direct involvement of Black and Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) led groups and organizers. Sharing power, centering their voices and working in tandem, these collaborations ensure that declarations push for change from the lens of those most impacted and authentically engage with the demands of communities and their legacies. Superficial diversity and inclusion efforts that bring BIPOC people and organizers into the conversation and then fail to implement their ideas repeat historical patterns of harm, stall momentum for structural change at best, and poison the strategy at worst. In this paper we will examine three declarations in the United States and analyze them utilizing evaluative criteria aligned with health equity and anti-racism practices. Finally, we offer recommendations to inform anti-racist public health work for meaningful systematic change toward decentralization and empowerment of communities in their health futures.

The COVID-19 Vaccine and the Black Community: Addressing the Justified Questions.

Established in 2019, the Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in STEM convenes a broad array of stakeholders that focus on the barriers and opportunities encountered by Black men and Black women as they navigate the pathways from K-12 and postsecondary education to careers in science, engineering, and medicine. Through meetings, public workshops, and publications, the Roundtable advances discussions that raise awareness and/or highlight promising practices for increasing the representation, retention, and inclusiveness of Black men and Black women in STEM. In keeping with the charge of the Roundtable, Roundtable leadership and leaders of the COVID-19 action group conducted an informational video in January 2021 to provide an in-depth discussion around common, justified questions in the Black community pertaining to the COVID-19 vaccine. The manuscript addresses selected questions and answers relating to the different types of COVID-19 vaccines and their development, administration, and effectiveness. Discussion focuses on addressing vaccine misconceptions, misinformation, mistrust, and hesitancy; challenges in prioritizing vaccinations in diverse populations and communities; dealing with racism in medicine and public health; optimizing communication and health education; and offering practical strategies and recommendations for improving vaccine acceptance by clinicians, health care workers, and the Black community. This manuscript summarizes the content in the YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdEC9c48A_k ).

Addressing Violence Against Children Through Anti-racism Action.

Racism is a system of structuring opportunity and assigning value based on the social interpretation of how one looks (which is what we call "race"). Racism unfairly disadvantages some individuals and communities, unfairly advantages other individuals and communities, and saps the strength of the whole society through the waste of human resources. There are 7 barriers to achieving health equity that are deeply embedded in US culture. These serve as values targets for anti-racism action. This article is an invitation to all who love children to become actively anti-racism.

Early Childhood Education to Promote Health Equity: A Community Guide Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Children in low-income and racial and ethnic minority families often experience delays in development by 3 years of age and may benefit from center-based early childhood education. DESIGN: A meta-analysis on the effects of early childhood education by Kay and Pennucci best met Community Guide criteria and forms the basis of this review. RESULTS: There were increases in intervention compared with control children in standardized test scores (median = 0.29 SD) and high school graduation (median = 0.20 SD) and decreases in grade retention (median = 0.23 SD) and special education assignment (median = 0.28 SD). There were decreases in crime (median = 0.23 SD) and teen births (median = 0.46 SD) and increases in emotional self-regulation (median = 0.21 SD) and emotional development (median = 0.04 SD). All effects were favorable, but not all were statistically significant. Effects were also long-lasting. CONCLUSIONS: Because many programs are designed to increase enrollment for high-risk students and communities, they are likely to advance health equity.

Out-of-School-Time Academic Programs to Improve School Achievement: A Community Guide Health Equity Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Low-income and minority status in the United States are associated with poor educational outcomes, which, in turn, reduce the long-term health benefits of education. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review assessed the extent to which out-of-school-time academic (OSTA) programs for at-risk students, most of whom are from low-income and racial/ethnic minority families, can improve academic achievement. Because most OSTA programs serve low-income and ethnic/racial minority students, programs may improve health equity. DESIGN: Methods of the Guide to Community Preventive Services were used. An existing systematic review assessing the effects of OSTA programs on academic outcomes (Lauer et al 2006; search period 1985-2003) was supplemented with a Community Guide update (search period 2003-2011). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Standardized mean difference. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies from the existing review and 25 studies from the update were combined and stratified by program focus (ie, reading-focused, math-focused, general academic programs, and programs with minimal academic focus). Focused programs were more effective than general or minimal academic programs. Reading-focused programs were effective only for students in grades K-3. There was insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness on behavioral outcomes and longer-term academic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: OSTA programs, particularly focused programs, are effective in increasing academic achievement for at-risk students. Ongoing school and social environments that support learning and development may be essential to ensure the longer-term benefits of OSTA programs.

Programs to increase high school completion: a community guide systematic health equity review.

CONTEXT: High school completion (HSC) is an established predictor of long-term morbidity and mortality. U.S. rates of HSC are substantially lower among students from low-income families and most racial/ethnic minority populations than students from high-income families and the non-Hispanic white population. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of programs to increase HSC and the potential of these programs to improve lifelong health among at-risk students. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search located a meta-analysis (search period 1985-2010/2011) on the effects of programs to increase HSC or General Educational Development (GED) diploma receipt; the meta-analysis was concordant with Community Guide definitions and methodologic standards. Programs were assessed separately for the general student population (152 studies) and students who were parents or pregnant (15 studies). A search for studies published between 2010 and August 2012 located ten more recent studies, which were assessed for consistency with the meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted in 2013. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The review focused on the meta-analysis. Program effectiveness was measured as the increased rate of HSC (or GED receipt) by the intervention group compared with controls. All assessed program types were effective in increasing HSC in the general student population: vocational training, alternative schooling, social-emotional skills training, college-oriented programming, mentoring and counseling, supplemental academic services, school and class restructuring, multiservice packages, attendance monitoring and contingencies, community service, and case management. For students who had children or were pregnant, attendance monitoring and multiservice packages were effective. Ten studies published after the search period for the meta-analysis were consistent with its findings. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that a variety of HSC programs can improve high school or GED completion rates. Because many programs are targeted to high-risk students and communities, they are likely to advance health equity.

Addressing the social determinants of children's health: a cliff analogy.

This paper presents a "Cliff Analogy" illustrating three dimensions of health intervention to help people who are falling off of the cliff of good health: providing health services, addressing the social determinants of health, and addressing the social determinants of equity. In the terms of the analogy, health services include an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, a net or trampoline halfway down, and a fence at the top of the cliff. Addressing the social determinants of health involves the deliberate movement of the population away from the edge of the cliff. Addressing the social determinants of equity acknowledges that the cliff is three-dimensional and involves interventions on the structures, policies, practices, norms, and values that differentially distribute resources and risks along the cliff face. The authors affirm that we need to address both the social determinants of health, including poverty, and the social determinants of equity, including racism, if we are to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities.

Using "socially assigned race" to probe white advantages in health status.

OBJECTIVES: We explore the relationships between socially assigned race ("How do other people usually classify you in this country?"), self-identified race/ethnicity, and excellent or very good general health status. We then take advantage of subgroups which are discordant on self-identified race/ethnicity and socially assigned race to examine whether being classified by others as White conveys an advantage in health status, even for those who do not self-identify as White. METHODS: Analyses were conducted using pooled data from the eight states that used the Reactions to Race module of the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. RESULTS: The agreement of socially assigned race with self-identified race/ethnicity varied across the racial/ethnic groups currently defined by the United States government. Included among those usually classified by others as White were 26.8% of those who self-identified as Hispanic, 47.6% of those who self-identified as American Indian, and 59.5% of those who self-identified with More than one race. Among those who self-identified as Hispanic, the age-, education-, and language-adjusted proportion reporting excellent or very good health was 8.7 percentage points higher for those socially assigned as White than for those socially assigned as Hispanic (P=.04); among those who self-identified as American Indian, that proportion was 15.4 percentage points higher for those socially assigned as White than for those socially assigned as American Indian (P=.05); and among those who self-identified with More than one race, that proportion was 23.6 percentage points higher for those socially assigned as White than for those socially assigned as Black (P<.01). On the other hand, no significant differences were found between those socially assigned as White who self-identified as White and those socially assigned as White who self-identified as Hispanic, as American Indian, or with More than one race. CONCLUSIONS: Being classified by others as White is associated with large and statistically significant advantages in health status, no matter how one self-identifies.