Vaccine hesitancy and mistrust of medicine and science dominate current discourse around disparities in who is currently receiving COVID-19 vaccines, a potentially lifesaving prevention strategy. Mistrust of medicine and science is based in a long and sordid history of unethical practice and research on African American, Latinx, Indigenous, and Asian American populations in this country. [1][2][3][4] However, current concerns about vaccine uptake are a glaring symptom of a much deeper problem-structural racism. The underlying condition of structural racism is a significant contributor to disparities in risk, morbidity, and mortality from not only COVID-19 but also many other conditions.The structures, policies, and practices that advantage some and disadvantage others so that race and ethnicity are consistent predictors of a cycle of unequal access to care, unequal access to educational and employment opportunities, and disproportionate exposure to health risks, as evident in the COVID-19 pandemic. Generations of Black individuals, Indigenous individuals, and those from other racial and ethnic minority groups have lived this cycle for decades with little to no hope for change.

The contribution of medical mistrust to healthcare utilization delays has gained increased public health attention. However, few studies examine these associations among African-American men, who delay preventive healthcare more often and report higher levels of medical mistrust than non-Hispanic White men. Additionally, studies rarely account for other factors reportedly working in tandem with medical mistrust to increase African-American men's preventive health screening delays (i.e., everyday racism and perceived racism in healthcare). We examined associations between medical mistrust, perceived racism in healthcare, everyday racism, and preventive health screening delays. Analyses were conducted using cross-sectional data from 610 African-American men aged 20 years and older recruited primarily from barbershops in four US regions (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009). Independent variables were medical mistrust (MM), everyday racism (ER), and perceived racism in healthcare (PRH). Dependent variables were self-reported routine checkup, blood pressure screening, and cholesterol screening delays. Using multiple logistic regression and tests for mediation, we calculated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to assess associations between the independent and dependent variables. After final adjustment, African-American men with higher MM were significantly more likely to delay blood pressure screenings. Men with more frequent ER exposure were significantly more likely to delay routine checkups and blood pressure screenings. Higher levels of PRH were associated with a significant increased likelihood of delaying cholesterol screening. MM did not mediate associations between ER and screening delays. Increasing preventive health screening among African-American men requires addressing medical mistrust and racism in and outside healthcare institutions.

Pastors and lay leaders have high expectations regarding university obligations in research partnerships. An intervention study based on CBPR methods was able to meet most of these expectations.

Food insecurity is associated with higher HbA, but living in an area with low physical food access is not. Food insecurity screening and interventions may help improve glycemic control for vulnerable patients.

Introduction-African American men often fail to obtain routine health examinations, which increases the probability of disease detection, yet little is known about psychosocial factors that motivate scheduling and receipt among this group.

No abstract

The Tuskegee Study, an observational study of over 400 sharecroppers with untreated syphilis, was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service to document the course of the disease in blacks, and racial differences in the clinical manifestations of syphilis. The men were not told they had syphilis, not given counseling on avoiding spread of the disease, and not given treatment throughout the course of the study. The study became the longest (1932-1972) nontherapeutic experiment on humans in the history of medicine, and has come to represent not only the exploitation of blacks in medical history, but the potential for exploitation of any population that may be vulnerable because of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, age or social class. It is important for physicians who will be caring for an increasingly diverse nation to understand the lasting implications of this study for their patients, but the effects of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study are demonstrated most strikingly by unsuccessful attempts at improving representation of minority patients in clinical trials.

Participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation (CEDI) research is challenging for a variety of reasons. Currently, there is not specific guidance or a tool available for researchers to assess their readiness to conduct CEDI research. We propose a conceptual framework that identifies detailed competencies for researchers participating in CEDI and maps these competencies to domains. The framework is a necessary step toward developing a CEDI research readiness survey that measures a researcher's attitudes, willingness, and self-reported ability for acquiring the knowledge and performing the behaviors necessary for effective community engagement. The conceptual framework for CEDI competencies was developed by a team of eight faculty and staff affiliated with a university's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The authors developed CEDI competencies by identifying the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors necessary for carrying out commonly accepted CE principles. After collectively developing an initial list of competencies, team members individually mapped each competency to a single domain that provided the best fit. Following the individual mapping, the group held two sessions in which the sorting preferences were shared and discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. During this discussion, modifications to wording of competencies and domains were made as needed. The team then engaged five community stakeholders to review and modify the competencies and domains. The CEDI framework consists of 40 competencies organized into nine domains: perceived value of CE in D&I research, introspection and openness, knowledge of community characteristics, appreciation for stakeholder's experience with and attitudes toward research, preparing the partnership for collaborative decision-making, collaborative planning for the research design and goals, communication effectiveness, equitable distribution of resources and credit, and sustaining the partnership. Delineation of CEDI competencies advances the broader CE principles and D&I research goals found in the literature and facilitates development of readiness assessments tied to specific training resources for researchers interested in conducting CEDI research.