In 2017, preliminary data show that gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 67% of new diagnoses of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, that MSM who inject drugs accounted for an additional 3%, and that African American/black (black) and Hispanic/Latino (Hispanic) MSM were disproportionately affected (1). During 2010-2015, racial/ethnic disparities in HIV incidence increased among MSM; in 2015, rates among black and Hispanic MSM were 10.5 and 4.9 times as high, respectively, as the rate among white MSM (compared with 9.2 and 3.8 times as high, respectively, in 2010) (2). Increased use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which reduces the risk for sexual acquisition of HIV infection by approximately 99% when taken daily as prescribed,* would help to reduce these disparities and support the Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America initiative† (3). Although PrEP use has increased among all MSM since 2014 (4), racial/ethnic disparities in PrEP use could increase existing disparities in HIV incidence among MSM (5). To understand racial/ethnic disparities in PrEP awareness, discussion with a health care provider, and use (steps in the HIV PrEP continuum of care) (6), CDC analyzed 2017 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) data. Black and Hispanic MSM were significantly less likely than were white MSM to be aware of PrEP, to have discussed PrEP with a health care provider, or to have used PrEP within the past year. Among those who had discussed PrEP with a health care provider within the past year, 68% of white MSM, 62% of Hispanic MSM, and 55% of black MSM, reported PrEP use. Prevention efforts need to increase PrEP use among all MSM and target eliminating racial/ethnic disparities in PrEP use.§.

/pdf/racial-ethnic-disparities-in-hiv-preexposure-prophylaxis-3knsbdm1a6.pdf

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Among Men Who Have Sex with Men — 23 Urban Areas, 2017

Research has generated valuable knowledge in identifying, understanding, and intervening to address inequities in the delivery of healthcare, yet these inequities persist. The best available interventions, programs and policies designed to address inequities in healthcare are not being adopted in routine practice settings. Implementation science can help address this gap by studying the factors, processes, and strategies at multiple levels of a system of care that influence the uptake, use, and the sustainability of these programs for vulnerable populations. We propose that an equity lens can help integrate the fields of implementation science and research that focuses on inequities in healthcare delivery. Using Proctor et al.’ (12) framework as a case study, we reframed five elements of implementation science to study inequities in healthcare. These elements include: 1) focus on reach from the very beginning; 2) design and select interventions for vulnerable populations and low-resource communities with implementation in mind; 3) implement what works and develop implementation strategies that can help reduce inequities in care; 4) develop the science of adaptations; and 5) use an equity lens for implementation outcomes. The goal of this paper is to continue the dialogue on how to critically infuse an equity approach in implementation studies to proactively address healthcare inequities in historically underserved populations. Our examples provide ways to operationalize how we can blend implementation science and healthcare inequities research.

/pdf/reframing-implementation-science-to-address-inequities-in-4dpfwpvyw9.pdf

Reframing implementation science to address inequities in healthcare delivery

There is growing urgency to tackle issues of equity and justice in the USA and worldwide. Health equity, a framing that moves away from a deficit mindset of what society is doing poorly (disparities) to one that is positive about what society can achieve, is becoming more prominent in health research that uses implementation science approaches. Equity begins with justice—health differences often reflect societal injustices. Applying the perspectives and tools of implementation science has potential for immediate impact to improve health equity. We propose a vision and set of action steps for making health equity a more prominent and central aim of implementation science, thus committing to conduct implementation science through equity-focused principles to achieve this vision in U.S. research and practice. We identify and discuss challenges in current health disparities approaches that do not fully consider social determinants. Implementation research challenges are outlined in three areas: limitations of the evidence base, underdeveloped measures and methods, and inadequate attention to context. To address these challenges, we offer recommendations that seek to (1) link social determinants with health outcomes, (2) build equity into all policies, (3) use equity-relevant metrics, (4) study what is already happening, (5) integrate equity into implementation models, (6) design and tailor implementation strategies, (7) connect to systems and sectors outside of health, (8) engage organizations in internal and external equity efforts, (9) build capacity for equity in implementation science, and (10) focus on equity in dissemination efforts. Every project in implementation science should include an equity focus. For some studies, equity is the main goal of the project and a central feature of all aspects of the project. In other studies, equity is part of a project but not the singular focus. In these studies, we should, at a minimum, ensure that we “leave no one behind” and that existing disparities are not widened. With a stronger commitment to health equity from funders, researchers, practitioners, advocates, evaluators, and policy makers, we can harvest the rewards of the resources being invested in health-related research to eliminate disparities, resulting in health equity.

/pdf/implementation-science-should-give-higher-priority-to-health-3c8lq9lhfk.pdf

Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity.

Racism, segregation, and inequality contribute to health outcomes and drive health disparities across the life course, including for newborn infants and their families. In this review, we address their effects on the health and well-being of newborn infants and their families with a focus on preterm birth. We discuss three causal pathways: increased risk; lower-quality care; and socioeconomic disadvantages that persist into infancy, childhood, and beyond. For each pathway, we propose specific interventions and research priorities that may remedy the adverse effects of racism, segregation, and inequality. Infants and their families will not realize the full benefit of advances in perinatal and neonatal care until we, collectively, accept our responsibility for addressing the range of determinants that shape long-term outcomes.

/pdf/the-color-of-health-how-racism-segregation-and-inequality-ocoef8lkgb.pdf

The color of health: how racism, segregation, and inequality affect the health and well-being of preterm infants and their families

Background: Most COVID-19 deaths occur among adults, not children, and attention has focused on mitigating COVID-19 burden among adults. However, a tragic consequence of adult deaths is that high numbers of children might lose their parents and caregivers to COVID-19-associated deaths. Methods: We quantified COVID-19-associated caregiver loss and orphanhood in the US and for each state using fertility and excess and COVID-19 mortality data. We assessed burden and rates of COVID-19-associated orphanhood and deaths of custodial and co-residing grandparents, overall and by race/ethnicity. We further examined variations in COVID-19-associated orphanhood by race/ethnicity for each state. Results: We found that from April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, over 140,000 children in the US experienced the death of a parent or grandparent caregiver. The risk of such loss was 1.1 to 4.5 times higher among children of racial and ethnic minorities, compared to Non-Hispanic White children. The highest burden of COVID-19-associated death of parents and caregivers occurred in Southern border states for Hispanic children, Southeastern states for Black children, and in states with tribal areas for American Indian/Alaska Native populations. Conclusions: We found substantial disparities in distributions of COVID-19-associated death of parents and caregivers across racial and ethnic groups. Children losing caregivers to COVID-19 need care and safe, stable, and nurturing families with economic support, quality childcare and evidence-based parenting support programs. There is an urgent need to mount an evidence-based comprehensive response focused on those children at greatest risk, in the states most affected.

/pdf/covid-19-associated-orphanhood-and-caregiver-death-in-the-bplmmf2ymq.pdf

COVID-19-Associated Orphanhood and Caregiver Death in the United States.

Health disparities research in the United States over the past 2 decades has yielded considerable progress and contributed to a developing evidence base for interventions that tackle disparities in health status and access to care. However, health disparity interventions have focused primarily on individual and interpersonal factors, which are often limited in their ability to yield sustained improvements. Health disparities emerge and persist through complex mechanisms that include socioeconomic, environmental, and system-level factors. To accelerate the reduction of health disparities and yield enduring health outcomes requires broader approaches that intervene upon these structural determinants. Although an increasing number of innovative programs and policies have been deployed to address structural determinants, few explicitly focused on their impact on minority health and health disparities. Rigorously evaluated, evidence-based structural interventions are needed to address multilevel structural determinants that systemically lead to and perpetuate social and health inequities. This article highlights examples of structural interventions that have yielded health benefits, discusses challenges and opportunities for accelerating improvements in minority health, and proposes recommendations to foster the development of structural interventions likely to advance health disparities research.

Eugenia Eng

Papers

Structural Interventions to Reduce and Eliminate Health Disparities.