What is already known about this topic? Data suggest that more men than women are dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide, but it is unclear why. What is added by this report? We describe an approach that considers biological and psychosocial factors that affect men's health and how these factors may intersect. Clinical, public health, community, and policy examples illustrate what can be done, and is being done, to address men's COVID-19-associated mortality risk. Our approach highlights the importance of examining COVID-19-associated mortality risk from a men's health perspective rather than one that focuses solely on sex differences. What are the implications for public health practice? We can seize this moment to reimagine and redesign our health care and public health systems to consider the many factors that influence men's health.

Dissemination of research beyond the academic community is an ethical responsibility of researchers and necessary in translational research to help ensure the uptake of research findings to improve health outcomes. Often, partnerships between community and academicians do not include research dissemination plans, possibly reflecting researchers not knowing how to create these plans. This manuscript details the development process of a research dissemination training module for academicians and researchers. This training was conceptualized and developed by Core faculty and staff. Development steps were: (a) identifying researchers’ dissemination needs using the Core Investigator Survey; (b) identifying communities dissemination needs/preferences using feedback from our community advisory board; (c) conducting a literature search to identify dissemination concepts from researchers and community perspectives; (d) developing the training module; (e) conducting a cognitive review with one basic science researcher and one community-based participatory researcher; (f) evaluating the training; and (g) finalizing the training module. Training attendees included 1 clinical and 3 basic science clinical researchers, a biomedical postdoctoral fellow, and 10 research staff. Of those completing the feedback survey, 60% had some experience with research dissemination. As a result of training, more than 50% of respondents strongly agreed that as researchers they have a clear understanding of dissemination, a greater understanding of the dissemination process, how to identify stakeholders and successfully develop a dissemination plan. While disseminating research findings beyond academic publications may be new to some researchers, this training provided the tools to implement dissemination practices in their current and future research.

Objectives Achieving health equity and reducing racial and ethnic health disparities require intentional community engagement efforts by academicians. Primary among these efforts is the acknowledgement of research-related mistrust. Efforts to build trust must begin with recognition of the invaluable knowledge and experience community stakeholders possess. Methods The Meharry Community Engagement Core builds on the foundation provided by Meharry Medical College, a Historically Black College and University, to achieve its mission to improve health and health outcomes through long-term collaborative research partnerships with community stakeholders. Early in its development, the Core actively engaged community stakeholders throughout all research phases. Results Early successes include achieving community feedback on research priorities, policies, and procedures and developing partnerships that span the research spectrum. Core work to date is promising and may serve as a model for addressing research-related mistrust and efforts to build trust.

No abstract

The purpose of this sequential, explanatory mixed methods study is to determine changes in attitudes towards research, trust in medical researchers and the process, and willingness to participate in research among African Americans immediately after receiving past study findings in a community listening session (CLS). We developed and implemented four CLSs with a total of 57 African Americans who were either past research participants or members of the community-at-large. In the quantitative (dominant) phase, 32 participants completed pre-post surveys and 10 of those participants completed the follow-up semi-structured interviews. Paired samples t-tests and McNemar's test determined bivariate differences between pre-and post-surveys. Thematic analyses determined emerging themes to further understand these differences. There was a significant increase in: (1) perceived advantages of clinical trials pretest (M = 26.63, SD = 5.43) and post-test (M = 28.53, SD = 4.24, p < .01); and (2) in trust in medical researchers from pre to post (M = 36.16, SD = 10.40 vs. M = 27.53, SD = 9.37, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pre-and post-tests as it relates to perceived disadvantages of clinical trials and willingness to participate. Qualitative analysis yielded the following themes: (1) sharing research results and the impact on attitudes towards research; (2) community listening sessions: a trust building strategy; and (3) satisfaction with the community listening session. Community listening sessions hold promise as a method that researchers can use to simultaneously disseminate research findings and positively impact research perceptions and potentially participation among racial and ethnic minorities.

Background: COVID-19 vaccination rates remain suboptimal among Black Americans who disproportionately experience higher hospitalization and death rates than White Americans. Methods: We conducted a multi-method (interviews and surveys) study among 30 Black Americans (n = 16 vaccinated, n = 14 unvaccinated) to explore factors related to vaccination hesitancy, decision-making processes, and communication related to uptake. Participants were recruited by using community-driven approaches, including partner collaborations. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data, and descriptive and bivariate analysis was used for quantitative data. Results: Of those unvaccinated, 79% (n = 11) stated they were delaying and 21% (n = 3) were declining vaccination indefinitely. When asked about the likelihood of vaccine initiation in 6 months and 12 months, 29% (n = 4) and 36% (n = 5), respectively, stated that they would receive the vaccine. The following themes emerged: (1) COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy exists on a continuum; (2) varied decision-making processes for COVID-19 vaccination; (3) motivators among vaccinated individuals; (4) barriers among unvaccinated individuals; (5) retrieving and navigating vaccine information within the COVID-19 infodemic; and (6) parent perspectives on child vaccination. Conclusions: Findings suggest that vaccinated and unvaccinated participants had similar and dissimilar perspectives in decision-making processes and vaccine concerns as shown in the Decision-making Processes for the COVID-19 vaccination (DePC) model. Based on these findings, future studies should further explore how factors influencing decision-making can lead to divergent outcomes for COVID-19 vaccination.

Background Social and structural determinants of health (SDOH) are the conditions in which individuals are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age. These drivers of health are integral in contextualizing the understanding and prevention of sport and recreation injury (SRI), and recognizing their impact is necessary to provide a complete and accurate picture of health and health outcomes related to injury. Main Reducing disparities and achieving equity in sports and recreation is possible in part by improving data collection methodologies and utilization. Often, many SDOH have considerable effect on SRI. Although SRI epidemiology frequently examines differences by sex, there is limited inclusion of factors such as socioeconomic status, housing, gender, and food security, in sport specific data sources or in analysis of sport recreation and injury using other sources (e.g. administrative data). The ongoing dual epidemics in the United States – racism and COVID-19 – have emphasized the importance of having and utilizing SDOH data to reduce the burden of injury and disproportionate effects on our diverse population. Conclusion Moving forward, to address disparities in SRI, SDOH must be included as a part of research priorities, health related goals, and policies. This difference can be made in developing consistency in data collection and utilization. This will provide an accurate picture of the intersections and interdisciplinary changes required to design the best approach to problems to develop solutions. Future data collection and utilization should prioritize SDOH.

No abstract