As a part of a larger, mixed-methods research study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 adults with depressive symptoms to understand the role that past health care discrimination plays in shaping help-seeking for depression treatment and receiving preferred treatment modalities. We recruited to achieve heterogeneity of racial/ethnic backgrounds and history of health care discrimination in our participant sample. Participants were Hispanic/Latino ( n = 4), non-Hispanic/Latino Black ( n = 8), or non-Hispanic/Latino White ( n = 9). Twelve reported health care discrimination due to race/ethnicity, language, perceived social class, and/or mental health diagnosis. Health care discrimination exacerbated barriers to initiating and continuing depression treatment among patients from diverse backgrounds or with stigmatized mental health conditions. Treatment preferences emerged as fluid and shaped by shared decisions made within a trustworthy patient–provider relationship. However, patients who had experienced health care discrimination faced greater challenges to forming trusting relationships with providers and thus engaging in shared decision-making processes.

No abstract

No abstract

Far from being an equalizer, as some have claimed, the COVID‐19 pandemic has exposed just how vulnerable many of our social, health, and political systems are in the face of major public health shocks. Rapid responses by health systems to meet increased demand for hospital beds while continuing to provide health services, largely via a shift to telehealth services, are critical adaptations. However, these actions are not sufficient to mitigate the impact of coronavirus for people from marginalized communities, particularly those with behavioral health conditions, who are experiencing disproportional health, economic, and social impacts from the evolving pandemic. Helping these communities weather this storm requires partnering with existing community‐based organizations and local governments to rapidly and flexibly meet the needs of vulnerable populations.

Objective: To explore how stakeholders responded to research evidence regarding supported employment (e.g., vocational rehabilitation), and ways evidence could be incorporated into policy and action.Data sources: Qualitative data were collected from three stakeholder groups-people with lived experience of mental health challenges, community health advocates, and state health policy makers.Study design: This study consisted of two sequential steps. First, three focus groups were conducted after presenting stakeholder groups (inclusive of 22 participants) with simulation data showing that improvement in employment status had a stronger impact on mental health than improvement in education or income for racially/ ethnically diverse groups. Second, with guidance from focus group findings, researchers conducted additional in-depth interviews (n = 19) to gain a deeper understanding of the opportunities and challenges related to incorporating these findings into policy and practice.