Many factors are associated with food insecurity in the United States. We conducted interviews with 25 low-income and/or food-insecure Oregonians to explore their experiences with food insecurity, the role of social support, and whether these experiences differed based on rural/urban residence. Ill health and unemployment emerged as food-insecurity contributors. Coping strategies cited included use of nutrition assistance programs, alternate food sources, and drawing on social support. The findings suggest that policy and practice efforts should be directed at increasing the human capital of low-income Oregonians and the benefit levels of essential nutrition assistance programs.

Interest in the effects of neighborhood context on individual wellbeing has increased in recent years. We now know that neighborhood conditions, such as poverty and deprivation, negatively impact residents. However, most of the extant work has taken an urban focus. Less is known about these processes in rural settings. Neighborhood conceptualizations, such as Census tracts and block groups, are standard in the urban neighborhood effects literature. Yet, rural neighborhoods differ from those in urban regions making it unclear how these conceptualizations would fit. This systematic review seeks to summarize how researchers have conceptualized and measured rural neighborhoods. Keyword searches were performed in a variety of databases to compile all relevant peer-reviewed articles. After examination, 19 articles fit the review criteria. Conceptualizations fell into five categories: administrative units, distance from home, town segments, local-actor mapped regions, and nongeographical self-definitions. Discussion of the merits of each for rural community research is provided. C

Background: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) strives for equitable collaboration among community and academic partners throughout the research process. To build the capacity of academia to function as effective research partners with communities, the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS), home of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH)’s Clinical and Translational Sciences Award (CTSA), developed a community engagement consulting model. This new model harnesses the expertise of community partners with CBPR experience and compensates them equitably to provide technical assistance to community–academic research partnerships. Objectives: This paper describes approaches to valuing community expertise, the importance of equitable compensation for community partners, the impact on the community partners, opportunities for institutional change, and the constraints faced in model implementation. Methods: Community Experts (CEs) are independent contractor consultants. CEs were interviewed to evaluate their satisfaction with their engagement and compensation for their work. Lessons Learned: (1) CEs have knowledge, power, and credibility to push for systems change. (2) Changes were needed within the university to facilitate successful consultation to community–academic partnerships. (3) Sustaining the CE role requires staff support, continued compensation, increased opportunities for engagement, and careful consideration of position demands. (4) The role provides benefits beyond financial compensation. (5) Opportunities to gather deepened relationships within the partnership and built collective knowledge that strengthened the project. Conclusions: Leveraging CE expertise and compensating them for their role benefits both university and community. Creating a place for community expertise within academia is an important step toward equitably including the community in research.

No abstract

Although recent research has examined discrimination in health care, no studies have investigated women's experiences during prenatal or obstetrical care. Analyses of data from the Oregon Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System showed that 18.53% of mothers reported discrimination by providers during prenatal care, labor, or delivery, most commonly because of age or insurance status. Perceived discrimination was associated with maternal characteristics such as age, marital status, and type of insurance, but not with number of subsequent well-baby visits.