¿No Hay Racismo?: application of the levels of racism framework to Latinx perspectives on barriers to health and wellbeing.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of the forms of systemic racism experienced by Latinx communities in North Carolina during the COVID-19 pandemic as identified by Latinx community health workers (CHWs) and community-based organization (CBO) leaders. METHODS: We held three focus groups in July 2022 (N = 16) with CHWs and CBO leaders in Spanish to discuss policy and community interventions that improved access to resources during the COVID-19 pandemic; policy or community interventions needed to improve care of Latinx communities; and lessons learned to improve the health of Latinx communities in the future. We performed directed and summative qualitative content analysis of the data in the original language using the Levels of Racism Framework by Dr. Camara Jones to identify examples of implicitly and explicitly discussed forms of systemic racism. RESULTS: Latinx CHWs and CBO leaders implicitly discussed numerous examples of all levels of racism when seeking and receiving health services, such as lack of resources for undocumented individuals and negative interactions with non-Latinx individuals, but did not explicitly name racism. Themes related to institutionalized racism included: differential access to resources due to language barriers; uninsured or undocumented status; exclusionary policies not accounting for cultural or socioeconomic differences; lack of action despite need; and difficulties obtaining sustainable funding. Themes related to personally-mediated racism included: lack of cultural awareness or humility; fear-inciting misinformation targeting Latinx populations; and negative interactions with non-Latinx individuals, organizations, or institutions. Themes related to internalized racism included: fear of seeking information or medical care; resignation or hopelessness; and competition among Latinx CBOs. Similarly, CHWs and CBO leaders discussed several interventions with systems-level impact without explicitly mentioning policy or policy change. CONCLUSION: Our research demonstrates community-identified examples of racism and confirms that Latinx populations often do not name racism explicitly. Such language gaps limit the ability of CHWs and CBOs to highlight injustices and limit the ability of communities to advocate for themselves. Although generally COVID-19 focused, themes identified represent long-standing, systemic barriers affecting Latinx communities. It is therefore critical that public and private policymakers consider these language gaps and engage with Latinx communities to develop community-informed anti-racist policies to sustainably reduce forms of racism experienced by this unique population.

Promoting Latinx health equity through community-engaged policy and practice reforms in North Carolina.

Introduction: The Latinx Advocacy Team & Interdisciplinary Network for COVID-19 (LATIN-19) is a unique multi-sector coalition formed early in the COVID-19 pandemic to address the multi-level health inequities faced by Latinx communities in North Carolina. Methods: We utilized the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Research Framework to conduct a directed content analysis of 58 LATIN-19 meeting minutes from April 2020 through October 2021. Application of the NIMHD Research Framework facilitated a comprehensive assessment of complex and multidimensional barriers and interventions contributing to Latinx health while centering on community voices and perspectives. Results: Community interventions focused on reducing language barriers and increasing community-level access to social supports while policy interventions focused on increasing services to slow the spread of COVID-19. Discussion: Our study adds to the literature by identifying community-based strategies to ensure the power of communities is accounted for in policy reforms that affect Latinx health outcomes across the U.S. Multisector coalitions, such as LATIN-19, can enable the improved understanding of underlying barriers and embed community priorities into policy solutions to address health inequities.

Systemic Racism Affecting Latinx Population Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Perspectives of Latinx Community Health Workers and Community-Based Organization Leaders.

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to identify forms of systemic racism experienced by Latinx communities in North Carolina during the COVID-19 pandemic as identified by Latinx community health workers (CHWs) and community-based organization (CBO) leaders. Methods: We conducted three focus groups in July 2022 (N=16). We performed qualitative analysis of data using an iterative inductive approach of the original language in Dedoose. Results: Four central themes emerged: (1) Access to resources for Latinx individuals; (2) Immediate, transitional, and future fears; (3) Benefits of CHWs; and (4) Lessons learned. Discussion: Institutional and state policies often do not involve community members, such as CHWs and CBO leaders, at the start of the development process, leading to ineffective interventions that perpetuate health disparities and systemic racism. Health Equity Implications: Community-informed policy recommendations can improve alignment of community and policy priorities to create more effective interventions to address systemic racism and promote health equity.

The Impact of Hearing Loss and Its Treatment on Health-Related Quality of Life Utility: a Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss significantly impacts health-related quality of life (QoL), yet the effects of current treatments on QoL utility remain uncertain. Our objective was to describe the impact of untreated and treated hearing loss on QoL utility to inform hearing healthcare policy. METHODS: We searched databases for articles published through 02/01/2021. Two independent reviewers screened for articles that reported elicitation of general QoL utility values for untreated and treated hearing loss health states. We extracted data and quality indicators from 62 studies that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Included studies predominately used observational pre/post designs (61%), evaluated unilateral cochlear implantation (65%), administered the Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3; 71%), and were conducted in Europe and North America (84%). In general, treatment of hearing loss improved post-treatment QoL utility when measured by most methods except the Euro-QoL 5 dimension (EQ-5D). In meta-analysis, hearing aids for adult mild-to-moderate hearing loss compared to no treatment significantly improved HUI3-estimated QoL utility (3 studies; mean change=0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07 to 0.14) but did not impact EQ-5D-estimated QoL (3 studies; mean change=0.0; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04). Cochlear implants improved adult QoL utility 1-year post-implantation when measured by the HUI3 (7 studies; mean change=0.17; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.23); however, pediatric VAS-estimated QoL utility was non-significant (4 studies; mean change=0.12; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.25). The quality of included studies was limited by failure to report missingness of data and low survey response rates. Our study was limited by heterogeneous study populations and designs. FINDINGS: Treatment of hearing loss significantly improves QoL utility, and the HUI3 and VAS were most sensitive to improvements in hearing. Improved access to hearing healthcare should be prioritized. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021253314.

Assessment of Population-Level Disadvantage Indices to Inform Equitable Health Policy.

Policy Points The rapid uptake of disadvantage indices during the pandemic highlights investment in implementing tools that address health equity to inform policy. Existing indices differ in their design, including data elements, social determinants of health domains, and geographic unit of analysis. These differences can lead to stark discrepancies in place-based social risk scores depending on the index utilized. Disadvantage indices are useful tools for identifying geographic patterns of social risk; however, indiscriminate use of indices can have varied policy implications and unintentionally worsen equity. Implementers should consider which indices are suitable for specific communities, objectives, potential interventions, and outcomes of interest. CONTEXT: There has been unprecedented uptake of disadvantage indices such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to identify place-based patterns of social risk and guide equitable health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, limited evidence around data elements, interoperability, and implementation leaves unanswered questions regarding the utility of indices to prioritize health equity. METHODS: We identified disadvantage indices that were (a) used three or more times from 2018 to 2021, (b) designed using national-level data, and (c) available at the census-tract or block-group level. We used a network visualization to compare social determinants of health (SDOH) domains across indices. We then used geospatial analyses to compare disadvantage profiles across indices and geographic areas. FINDINGS: We identified 14 indices. All incorporated data from public sources, with half using only American Community Survey data (n = 7) and the other half combining multiple sources (n = 7). Indices differed in geographic granularity, with county level (n = 5) and census-tract level (n = 5) being the most common. Most states used the SVI during the pandemic. The SVI, the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index (CCVI), and the Child Opportunity Index (COI) met criteria for further analysis. Selected indices shared five indicators (income, poverty, English proficiency, no high school diploma, unemployment) but varied in other metrics and construction method. While mapping of social risk scores in Durham County, North Carolina; Cook County, Illinois; and Orleans Parish, Louisiana, showed differing patterns within the same locations depending on choice of disadvantage index, risk scores across indices showed moderate to high correlation (rs 0.7-1). However, spatial autocorrelation analyses revealed clustering, with discrepant distributions of social risk scores between different indices. CONCLUSIONS: Existing disadvantage indices use varied metrics to represent place-based social risk. Within the same geographic area, different indices can provide differences in social risk values and interpretations, potentially leading to varied public health or policy responses.

Evidence gaps in economic analyses of hearing healthcare: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is a common and costly medical condition. This systematic review sought to identify evidence gaps in published model-based economic analyses addressing hearing loss to inform model development for an ongoing Lancet Commission. METHODS: We searched the published literature through 14 June 2020 and our inclusion criteria included decision model-based cost-effectiveness analyses that addressed diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of hearing loss. Two investigators screened articles for inclusion at the title, abstract, and full-text levels. Data were abstracted and the studies were assessed for the qualities of model structure, data assumptions, and reporting using a previously published quality scale. FINDINGS: Of 1437 articles identified by our search, 117 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these model-based analyses were set in high-income countries (n = 96, 82%). The evaluated interventions were hearing screening (n = 35, 30%), cochlear implantation (n = 34, 29%), hearing aid use (n = 28, 24%), vaccination (n = 22, 19%), and other interventions (n = 29, 25%); some studies included multiple interventions. Eighty-six studies reported the main outcome in quality-adjusted or disability-adjusted life-years, 24 of which derived their own utility values. The majority of the studies used decision tree (n = 72, 62%) or Markov (n = 41, 35%) models. Forty-one studies (35%) incorporated indirect economic effects. The median quality rating was 92/100 (IQR:72-100). INTERPRETATION: The review identified a large body of literature exploring the economic efficiency of hearing healthcare interventions. However, gaps in evidence remain in evaluation of hearing healthcare in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in investigating interventions across the lifespan. Additionally, considerable uncertainty remains around productivity benefits of hearing healthcare interventions as well as utility values for hearing-assisted health states. Future economic evaluations could address these limitations. FUNDING: NCATS 3UL1-TR002553-03S3.