Exploring how health equity is addressed in accountable communities of/for health (ACHs).

OBJECTIVE: To explore how Accountable Communities of/for Health (ACHs), a type of health-focused multisector collaborative, are developing strategies to address health equity with diverse partners. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Interview and focus group participants were recruited from a purposive sample of 22 ACH participant organizations in Washington (n = 9 ACHs) and California (n = 13 ACH). STUDY DESIGN: Interview and focus group data were thematized using constant comparison analysis. DATA COLLECTION: Interviews were conducted to learn how each ACH's system context, collaboration processes, and goals influence its progress toward health equity. Focus groups were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of how local context and power dynamics influence an ACH's ability to make progress toward health equity. There were 22 focus group participants and 65 interview participants. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Results indicate that ACHs advance health equity across the social-ecological spectrum of health with approaches targeting the individual, community, and societal levels. Specific approaches used by ACHs to collaboratively address health equity include providing equity education to participating organizations and community groups; including diverse community voices in collaborative decision-making; changing practices in their participant's daily operations; improving existing services and developing new services; and actively promoting a culture of keeping equity at the center of ACH efforts. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies strategies for advancing health equity in multisector collaboratives. ACHs in Washington and California are devoting resources to ensure health equity is central to their work. The numerous approaches ACHs use to advance health equity are important to ensure everyone can reach their full health potential. While current literature argues that multisector health initiatives are integral for advancing health equity, there is a lack of research on how these initiatives advance equity in practice. Thus, this paper provides generalizable strategies that can be further investigated to optimize progress toward health equity.

What is ethnographic about digital ethnography? A sociological perspective.

When COVID-19 health guidelines vastly restricted or shut down in-person ethnographic research in 2020, many researchers pivoted to forms of online qualitative research using platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, and Discord. This growing body of qualitative internet research in sociology is often encapsulated under the umbrella term "digital ethnography." But the question of what makes digital qualitative research ethnographic remains open. In this article, we posit that digital ethnographic research necessitates a negotiation of the ethnographer's self-presentation and co-presence within the field that other forms of qualitative research, such as content or discourse analysis, do not require to satisfy their epistemological stance. To make our case, we provide a brief overview of digital research in sociology and related disciplines. Then, we draw upon our experiences conducting ethnographies in digital communities and in-person communities (what we call here, "analog ethnography") to explore how decisions about self-presentation and co-presence facilitate or block the generation of meaningful ethnographic data. We think through pertinent questions such as: Does the lower barrier for anonymity online justify disguised research? Does anonymity generate thicker data? How should digital ethnographers participate in research environments? What are the possible repercussions of digital participation? We argue that digital and analog ethnographies share a common epistemology that is distinct from non-participatory forms of qualitative digital research-namely the need for the researcher to relationally gather data from the field site over an extended period of time.

Using the Meaningful Involvement of People Living with HIV/AIDS (MIPA) Framework to Assess the Engagement of Sexual Minority Men of Color in the US HIV Response: a Literature Review.

Black and Latino sexual minority men (SMM) continue to be disproportionately impacted by HIV. We utilized eight components of the Meaningful Involvement of People Living with HIV/AIDS (MIPA) framework to assess the engagement of Black and Latino SMM. Thirty-six (36) studies were included in the literature review. Forty-two percent of studies were Black SMM-specific, followed by Latino SMM-specific (31%) studies. Twenty-eight percent of studies were conducted among both groups. Most studies (72%) were intervention-related and focused on HIV prevention. The top five most common methods of community engagement were focus groups (39%), followed by interviews (36%), community-based participatory research (14%), the utilization of community advisory boards or peer mentorship (11%), and the establishment of multi-stakeholder coalitions, observations, or surveys (8%). We documented at least 7 MIPA components in 47% of the included studies. Community-based participatory research was more commonly utilized to engage Latino SMM. Researchers were more likely to initiate the engagement across all included studies. Few studies documented how Black and Latino SMM perceived the engagement. Engagement responsiveness was a well-documented MIPA component. In terms of engagement power dynamics, there were several examples of power imbalances, especially among Black SMM-specific studies. The inclusion of Black and Latino SMM had robust impacts on HIV research and interventions. There were limited examples of engagement capacity and maintenance. This is one of the first studies focused on utilizing MIPA to document the engagement of SMM of color. MIPA served as a useful framework for understanding the engagement of SMM of color in the US HIV response. The engagement of SMM of color is critical to reducing health inequities.