ObjectivesWe describe the perceptions and experiences of anti-Asian racism and violence and depression severity prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of Asian American (AA) adolescents and young adults.MethodsWe used data from the Young Asian American Health Survey (YAAHS), an online-recruited sample of AA adolescents (ages 13–17) and young adults (ages 18–29 years) conducted during May 2021 to March 2022. We presented descriptive statistics examining the univariate distribution and bivariate relationships of depression severity, sociodemographic characteristics, and experiences and perceptions of anti-Asian violence.ResultsOur sample (n = 176) comprised AA adolescents and young adults from 17 Asian ethnicities. A quarter said that the frequency and/or severity of their personal experiences of anti-Asian harassment had increased since the pandemic started. 76% indicated feeling less safe now than before the pandemic. Two-thirds reported that their depressive symptoms have increased since the pandemic started. Participants who reported feeling less safe now than before the pandemic were more likely to report increased personal experiences with anti-Asian harassment and increased depression severity since the pandemic started than those who reported feeling as safe or safer before the pandemic (p < 0.01 for both).DiscussionFindings illustrate AA adolescent and young adults are experiencing multiple health and social crises stemming from increased anti-Asian racism during the COVID-19 pandemic. We urge policymakers to strengthen data systems that connect racial discrimination and mental health and to institute prevention measures and anti-racist mental health services that are age- and culturally-appropriate for AA adolescent and young adults.
Racial
residential segregation is considered a fundamental cause of racial health disparities, with housing discrimination as a critical driver of residential segregation. Despite this link, racial discrimination in housing is far less studied than segregation in the population health literature. As a result, we know little about how discrimination in housing is linked to health beyond its connection to segregation. Furthermore, we need to understand how health impacts differ across different types of housing discrimination. This review aims to assess the state of the population health literature on the conceptualization, measurement, and health implications of housing discrimination. We used PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews and presented the data on 32 articles that met our inclusion criteria published before January 1, 2022. Nearly half of the articles do not define housing discrimination explicitly. Additionally, there is considerable variation in how housing discrimination is operationalized across studies. Compared to studies using administrative data for housing discrimination exposures, studies using survey data were more likely to report a detrimental association with health outcomes. Synthesizing and comparing the results of these studies helps bridge methodological approaches to this research. Our review helps inform the debate on how racism impacts population health. Given the changing nature of racial discrimination over time and place, we discuss how population health researchers can approach studying various forms of housing discrimination.
Background: Racism persists, underscoring the need to rapidly document the perspectives and experiences of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) groups as well as marginalized populations (eg, formerly incarcerated people) during pandemics.Objective: This methods paper offers a model for using Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) and related critical methodologies (ie, feminist and decolonizing methods) to inform the conceptualization, methods, and dissemination of qualitative research undertaken in response to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.Sample: Using purposive snowball sampling, we identified organizations involved with health equity and social justice advocacy among BIPOC and socially marginalized populations. Focus group participants (N=63) included community members, organizers, activists, and health workers.Design: We conducted topic-specific (eg, reproductive justice) and population-specific (eg, Asian and Pacific Islander) focus groups (N=16 focus groups) in rapid succession using Zoom software.Methods: A self-reflexive, iterative praxis guided theorization, data collection and analysis. We obtained community input on study design, the semi-structured discussion guide, ethical considerations and dissemination. Applying PHCRP, we assessed our assumptions iteratively. We transcribed each interview verbatim, de-identified the data, then used two distinct qualitative techniques to code and analyze them: thematic analysis to identify unifying concepts that recur across focus groups and narrative analysis to keep each participant’s story intact.Results: The praxis facilitated relationship-building with partners and supported the iterative assessment of assumptions. Logistical constraints included difficulty ensuring the confidentiality of virtual discussions.Conclusions: These novel approaches provide an effective model for community-engaged qualitative research during a pandemic. Ethn Dis. 2022;32(3):243-256; doi:10.18865/ed.32.3.243
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.