Sedentary behavior, particularly sitting, is ubiquitous in many contemporary societies. This is a major societal concern considering the evidence for a strong association between sitting behavior and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. Unsurprisingly, leading public health agencies have begun to advocate “reduction” in sitting behavior. Though, the guidelines are typically vague and non-specific. The lack of specific guidelines for prolonged sitting is attributable to the absence of available evidence to facilitate guideline development. To inform policy, well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to test the efficacy of specific and translatable sitting reduction strategies. To guide the design of randomized controlled trials, this review postulates that several gaps in the literature first need to be filled. Following a general discussion of the importance of sitting behavior to contemporary societies, each of the following are discussed: (i) acute sitting exposure and systems physiology; (ii) recommendations for a systems physiology toolbox; (iii) study design considerations for acute sitting exposure; and (iv) translation of sitting-focused research.

What is one word you would use to describe your experience conducting grant-funded research projects in which community partners receive funding? Why did you choose this word?2) I'm now going to ask questions about your experience during the pre-award period (before grant funding is received). These questions relate to grant funded research projects in which community partners would receive funding.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to evolve as a global health crisis. Although highly effective vaccines have been developed, non-pharmaceutical interventions remain critical to controlling disease transmission. One such intervention—rapid, at-home antigen self-testing—can ease the burden associated with facility-based testing programs and improve testing access in high-risk communities. However, its impact on SARS-CoV-2 community transmission has yet to be definitively evaluated, and the socio-behavioral aspects of testing in underserved populations remain unknown. Methods As part of the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics–Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) program funded by the National Institutes of Health, we are implementing a public health intervention titled “Say Yes! COVID Test” (SYCT) involving at-home self-testing using a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen assay in North Carolina (Greenville, Pitt County) and Tennessee (Chattanooga City, Hamilton County). The intervention is supported by a multifaceted communication and community engagement strategy to ensure widespread awareness and uptake, particularly in marginalized communities. Participants receive test kits either through online orders or via local community distribution partners. To assess the impact of this intervention on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, we will conduct a non-randomized, ecological study using community-level outcomes. Specifically, we will evaluate trends in SARS-CoV-2 cases and hospitalizations, SARS-CoV-2 viral load in wastewater, and population mobility in each community before, during, and after the SYCT intervention. Individuals who choose to participate in SYCT will also have the option to enroll in an embedded prospective cohort substudy gathering participant-level data to evaluate behavioral determinants of at-home self-testing and socio-behavioral mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. Discussion This is the first large-scale, public health intervention implementing rapid, at-home SARS-CoV-2 self-testing in the United States. The program consists of a novel combination of an at-home testing program, a broad communications and community engagement strategy, an ecological study to assess impact, and a research substudy of the behavioral aspects of testing. The findings from the SYCT project will provide insights into innovative methods to mitigate viral transmission, advance the science of public health communications and community engagement, and evaluate emerging, novel assessments of community transmission of disease.

Introduction Events of spring 2020—the COVID19 pandemic and re-birth of a social justice movement—have thrown disparities in disease risk, morbidity, and mortality in sharp relief. In response, healthcare organizations have shifted attentions and resources towards equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) issues and initiatives like never before. Focused, proven equity-centered skill and mindset development is needed for healthcare professionals to operationalize these pledges and stated aims. Aim This article highlights program evaluation results for this Clinical Scholars National Leadership Institute (CSNLI) specific to EDI. We will show that CSNLI imparts the valuable and essential skills to health professionals that are needed to realize health equity through organizational and system change. Setting Initial cohort of 29 participants in CSNLI, engaging in the program over 3 years through in-person and distance-based learning offerings and activities. Program Description The CSNLI is a 3-year, intensive leadership program that centers EDI skill development across personal, interpersonal, organizational, and systems domains through its design, competencies, and curriculum. Program Evaluation A robust evaluation following the Kirkpatrick Model offers analysis of four data collecting activities related to program participants’ EDI learning, behavioral change, and results. Discussion Over the course of the program, participants made significant gains in competencies related to equity, diversity, and inclusion. Furthermore, participants demonstrated growth in behavior change and leadership activities in the areas of organizational and system change. Results demonstrate the need to center both leader and leadership development on equity, diversity, and inclusion curriculum to make real change in the US Healthcare System.

background Family health history can predict a patient's risk for common complex diseases. This project assessed the completeness of family health history data in medical charts and evaluated the utility of these data for performing risk assessments in primary care. methods Family health history data were collected and analyzed to determine the presence of quality indicators that are necessary for effective and accurate assessment of disease risk. results More than 99% of the 390 paper charts analyzed contained information about family health history, which was usually scattered throughout the chart. Information on the health of the patient's parents was collected more often than information on the health of other relatives. Key information that was often not collected included age of disease onset, affected side of the family, and second-degree relatives affected. Less than 4% of patient charts included family health histories that were informative enough to accurately assess risk for common complex diseases. limitations Limitations of this study include the small number of charts reviewed per provider, the fact that the sample consisted of primary care providers in a single geographic location, and the inability to assess ethnicity, consanguinity, and other indicators of the informativeness of family health history. conclusions The family health histories collected in primary care are usually not complete enough to assess the patient's risk for common complex diseases. This situation could be improved with use of tools that analyze the family health history information collected and provide risk-stratified decision support recommendations for primary care.

The Clinical Scholars (CS) National Leadership Institute (CSNLI) equips interprofessional teams of health care professionals through equity-centered leadership training, preparing them to be change leaders working to advance health equity in communities across the US and its territories. At the time of this writing, four cohorts consisting of 131 Fellows from 14 different disciplines, participating in 36 different teams of two to five members are working on “Wicked Problem Impact Projects”, an implementation science-based approach to action learning projects. This chapter reports on the design of the 3-year CS experience, the onsite and distance-based training support, and the subsequent learning responses of 98 participants, 30 of whom had completed the 3-year training (Cohort 1), 34 of whom had completed 2-years of the training (Cohort 2), and 34 who had completed 1-year of the training (Cohort 3). The training program is guided by 25 competencies that weave leadership and equity throughout, which are divided into four families: Personal, Interpersonal, Organizational, and Community & Systems. Learning outcomes indicated that Fellows are highly satisfied, with all participants rating their experience at 6.10-6.77 on a 7-point scale across all sessions, all years. Retrospective pre-and post-tests assessed learning gains on the competencies, indicating statistically significant changes from baseline to midpoint in participant knowledge, attitude, use, and self-efficacy in each of the 25 competencies and large and significant gains by competency family. The Clinical Scholars Program presents an in-depth, longitudinal, state-of-the-art approach to promoting the cultivation and development of a large and sophisticated set of skills that intentionally integrate leadership competencies with a focus on health equity. Taken together, these outcomes show how a logical and structured process, using widely available tools, can contribute to both learning and implementation of skills that lead to real world impacts in communities. Given the results reported at the close of their Clinical Scholars experience, the data suggest that investing in robust, intensive leadership development of interprofessional teams is a smart decision for impacting the culture of health in communities nationwide.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed socioeconomic, geographic, and medical vulnerabilities in our country. In North Carolina, inequalities resulting from centuries of structural racism exacerbate disparate impacts of infection and death. We propose three opportunities that leaders in our state can embrace to move toward equity as we weather, and emerge from, this pandemic. An Intersection of COVID-19 Disparities and Racial Inequities in North Carolina