Search

While homeownership has been linked to positive health outcomes there is limited evidence regarding the conditions under which it may be health protective. We present a conceptual model linking homeownership to health, highlighting key potential pathways. Using the Detroit Metropolitan Area as a case study, and data from the American Community Survey (2009-2013; 5-years estimates) and Michigan Department of Community Health, we tested the following questions: (1) Is neighborhood percentage non-Hispanic Black (NHB) associated with homeownership? (2) Is neighborhood percentage NHB associated with health? (3) Is the association between percentage NHB and health mediated by homeownership? (4) Does neighborhood housing value modify associations between percentage NHB and health, or between homeownership and health? Percentage NHB was associated with homeownership and health outcomes; Associations between percentage NHB and mortality, but not disability, were partially mediated by neighborhood homeownership. Neighborhood housing value modified associations between neighborhood homeownership and both disability and mortality, but not between percentage NHB and health outcomes. Findings are consistent with the thesis that health-promoting effects of homeownership may be contingent upon house values. These results add to a limited body of evidence suggesting that variations in homeownership may contribute to persistent racial and socioeconomic health inequities., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Understanding what contributes to success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships is essential to ensuring their effectiveness in addressing health disparities and health inequities. Synergy, the concept of accomplishing more together than separately, is central to partnership effectiveness. However, synergy specific to long-standing, equity-focused CBPR partnerships has not been closely examined. To address this, we defined and developed measures of partnership synergy as one dimension of a participatory mixed methods study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), to develop a validated instrument to measure success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Framed by a conceptual model and scoping literature review, we conducted in-depth interviews with a national panel of academic and community experts in CBPR and equity to develop partnership synergy measures. Items were refined through an iterative process, including a three-stage Delphi process, comparison with existing measures, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. Seven questionnaire items were developed to measure synergy arising from equitable partnerships bringing together diverse partners across power differences to promote equity. Defining and measuring synergy in the context of long-standing partnership success is central to understanding the role of synergy in collaborative approaches to research and action and can strengthen CBPR partnerships to promote healthy communities and advance health equity.

Introduction: Research has described emergency department (ED) use patterns in detail. However, evidence is lacking on how, at the time a decision is made, patients decide if healthcare is required or where to seek care.Methods: Using community-based participatory research methods, we conducted a mixed-methods descriptive pilot study. Due to the exploratory, hypothesis-generating nature of this research, we did not perform power calculations, and financial constraints only allowed for 20 participants. Hypothetical vignettes for the 10 most common low acuity primary care complaints (cough, sore throat, back pain, etc.) were texted to patients twice daily over six weeks, none designed to influence the patient’s decision to seek care. We conducted focus groups to gain contextual information about participant decision-making. Descriptive statistics summarized responses to texts for each scenario. Qualitative analysis of open-ended text message responses and focus group discussions identified themes associated with decision-making for acute care needs.Results: We received text survey responses from 18/20 recruited participants who responded to 72% (1092/1512) of the texted vignettes. In 48% of the vignettes, participants reported they would do nothing, for 34% of the vignettes participants reported they would seek care with a primary care provider, and 18% of responses reported they would seek ED care. Participants were not more likely to visit an ED during “off-hours.” Our qualitative findings showed: 1) patients don’t understand when care is needed; 2) patients don’t understand where they should seek care.Conclusion: Participants were unclear when or where to seek care for common acute health problems, suggesting a need for patient education. Similar research is necessary in different populations and regarding the role of urgent care in acute care delivery. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(6):-0]

Efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 rely on trust in public health organizations and practices. These practices include contact tracing, which requires people to share personal information with public health organizations. The central role of trust in these practices has gained more attention during the pandemic, resurfacing endemic questions about public trust and potential racial trust disparities, especially as they relate to participation in public health efforts. Using an explanatory mixed methods design, we conducted quantitative analysis of state-level survey data in the United States from a representative sample of Michigan residents (n = 1000) in May 2020. We used unadjusted and adjusted linear regressions to examine differences in trust in public health information and willingness to participate in public health efforts by race. From July to September 2020, we conducted qualitative interviews (n = 26) to further explain quantitative results. Using unadjusted linear regression, we observed higher willingness to participate in COVID-19 public health efforts among Black survey respondents compared to White respondents. In adjusted analysis, that difference disappeared, yielding no statistically significant difference between Black and White respondents in either trust in public health information sources or willingness to participate. Qualitative interviews were conducted to explain these findings, considering their contrast with assumptions that Black people would exhibit lower trust in public health organizations during COVID-19. Altruism, risk acknowledgement, trust in public health organizations during COVID-19, and belief in efficacy of public health efforts contributed to willingness to participate in public health efforts among interviewees. Our findings underscore the contextual nature of trust, and the importance of this context when analyzing protective health behaviors among communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Assumptions about mistrust among Black individuals and communities may be inaccurate because they overlook the specific context of the public health crisis. These findings are important because they indicate that Black respondents are exhibiting strategic trust during COVID-19 despite systemic, contemporary, and historic barriers to trust. Conceptual specificity rather than blanket generalizations is warranted, especially given the harms of stereotyping and discrimination. • We identify no racial difference in acceptance of public health efforts. • Altruism, risk, trust, and belief in efficacy motivated willingness to participate. • Mistrust is not a static characteristic that can be assigned to Black communities. • Need to challenge assumed mistrust, especially regarding public health efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]