H.O.P.E. grows: An academic-public health partnership to reimagine public health services and increase mental health access among socially vulnerable populations.

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the process of developing and sustaining an academic-public health partnership for behavioral health integration through an expansion of the Aligning Systems for Health (ASfH) framework. STUDY SETTING: Practice-informed primary data (2017-2023) from the Holistic Opportunity Program for Everyone (HOPE) Initiative based in Charlotte, NC. STUDY DESIGN: The unit of analysis in this descriptive case study is inter-organizational, specifically focusing on an academic-public health relationship. We illustrate the partnership process across the ASfH four core areas, including key challenges and insights. DATA COLLECTION: Utilized a Critical Moments Reflection methodology and review of HOPE program data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: (1) Formal partnership structures and processes are essential to monitoring the four ASfH core components for on-going system alignment. (2) Aligning systems for health principally involves two ecologies: (i) the health program and (ii) the partnership. The vitality and sustainability of both ecologies require continuous attention and resource investment. (3) Relationships rest at the heart of aligning systems. (4) With comparative advantages in research methods, the academic sector is especially poised to collaborate with healthcare systems and human service organizations to study, develop, implement, and scale evidence-based health interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The academic sector shares overlapping purposes with the public health, healthcare, and social services sectors while providing complementary value. It is a critical sectoral partner in advancing population health and health equity.

Contextualizing the experiences of Black pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic: 'It's been a lonely ride'.

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the prenatal care experience, specifically regarding medical appointments and social opportunities. It is critical to capture this change through the narratives of pregnant people, particularly those of marginalized populations, whose voices may often be underrepresented in the literature. This mixed-methods paper summarizes the experiences of 40 pregnant Black/African American (AA) women during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional, online survey was administered between 2020 and 2021 to assess prenatal health and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients' pregnancy experience. Coping behaviors during the pandemic were self-reported using the COPE-IS. Univariate analyses were conducted. An additional analysis of participants (n = 4) was explored through a week-long qualitative exercise using a photo documentation procedure. Photo-Elicitation Interviews (PEI) were conducted to capture and center their pandemic pregnancy experiences. Sources of stress during the pandemic varied, with the most common being financial concerns (n = 19, 47.5%). Over half of the sample (n = 18, 54.5%) self-reported increases in their positive coping behaviors during the pandemic, such as communicating with friends and family, talking to healthcare providers, listening to music, and engaging in spiritual practices-such as prayer. The four PEI study participants reflected on the impacts of social distancing on their prenatal experience and mentioned hospital and provider-related weariness due to their race. The findings of this study suggest that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Black/AA pregnant women in Charlotte, NC used social support, mindfulness practices, self-advocacy, and health literacy to navigate challenges present during their prenatal health experience. This paper highlights the personal, social, and structural experiences of pregnant women during a public health crisis so that responsive and effective programs or policies can be planned in the future.

The Moderating Effect of Vaccine Hesitancy on the Relationship between the COVID-19 Vaccine Coverage Index and Vaccine Coverage.

To examine COVID-19 vaccination barriers in the US, this study drew on publicly available county-level data (n = 3130) to investigate the impact of vaccine hesitancy on the relationship between county-level social/structural barriers and vaccine coverage. A hierarchical regression was performed to establish the relationship between the COVID-19 Vaccine Coverage Index (CVAC) and vaccine coverage, assess the moderating effect of vaccine hesitancy on this relationship, and explore the influence of ethno-racial composition on vaccine coverage. A significant, negative relationship (r2 = 0.11, f2 = 0.12) between CVAC and vaccine coverage by county was established (step 1). When vaccine hesitancy was introduced as a moderator (step 2), the model significantly explained additional variance in vaccine coverage (r2 = 0.21, f2 = 0.27). Simple slopes analysis indicated a significant interaction effect, whereby the CVAC-vaccine coverage relationship was stronger in low hesitancy counties as compared with high hesitancy counties. Counties with low social/structural barriers (CVAC) but high hesitancy were projected to have 14% lower vaccine coverage. When county-level ethno-racial composition was introduced (step 3), higher proportions of white residents in a county predicted decreased vaccination rates (p < 0.05). Findings indicate that CVAC should be paired with vaccine hesitancy measures to better predict vaccine uptake. Moreover, counties with higher proportions of white residents led to decreases in vaccine uptake, suggesting that future intervention strategies should also target whites to reach herd immunity. We conclude that public health leaders and practitioners should address both social/structural and psychological barriers to vaccination to maximize vaccine coverage, with a particular focus on vaccine hesitancy in communities with minimal social/structural barriers.