Search

Background: Housing is a major social determinant of health that affects health status and outcomes across the lifespan. Objectives: An interagency portfolio analysis assessed the level of funding invested in "health and housing research" from fiscal years (FY) 2016–2020 across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to characterize the existing health and housing portfolio and identify potential areas for additional research and collaboration. Methods/Results: We identified NIH, HUD, and CDC research projects that were relevant to both health and housing and characterized them by housing theme, health topic, population, and study design. We organized the assessment of the individual housing themes by four overarching housing-to-health pathways. From FY 2016–2020, NIH, HUD, and CDC funded 565 health and housing projects combined. The Neighborhood pathway was most common, followed by studies of the Safety and Quality pathway. Studies of the Affordability and Stability pathways were least common. Health topics such as substance use, mental health, and cardiovascular disease were most often studied. Most studies were observational (66%); only a little over one fourth (27%) were intervention studies. Discussion: This review of the research grant portfolios of three major federal funders of health and housing research in the United States describes the diversity and substantial investment in research at the intersection between housing and health. Analysis of the combined portfolio points to gaps in studies on causal pathways linking housing to health outcomes. The findings highlight the need for research to better understand the causal pathways from housing to health and prevention intervention research, including rigorous evaluation of housing interventions and policies to improve health and well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite efforts to the contrary, disparities in health and health care persist in the United States. To solve this problem, federal agencies representing different disciplines and perspectives are collaborating on a variety of transdisciplinary research initiatives. The most recent of these initiatives was launched in 2006 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Office of Public Health Research and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health brought together federal partners representing a variety of disciplines to form the Federal Collaboration on Health Disparities Research (FCHDR). FCHDR collaborates with a wide variety of federal and nonfederal partners to support and disseminate research that aims to reduce or eliminate disparities in health and health care. Given the complexity involved in eliminating health disparities, there is a need for more transdisciplinary, collaborative research, and facilitating that research is FCHDR's mission. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:1955-1961. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.167932)

We ran 10 Malaise traps along a latitudinal gradient in five old-growth forests: San Felasco Hammock, FL (30 deg. N, 82 deg. W); Tall Timbers Research Station, FL (31 deg. N, 84 deg. W); Hitchiti Experimental Forest, GA (33 deg. N, 84 deg. W); Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, MD (39 deg. N, 77 deg. W), and Shaw Woods, Ontario (46 deg. N, 77 deg. W). Of 18,791 ichneumonid wasps collected, 1,487 campoplegines and 4,494 ichneumonines were sorted to 241 species (95 species of Campopleginae and 146 of Ichneumoninae). Campoplegine species richness was highest at the Georgia site: San Felasco (20 species), Tall Timbers (32), Hitchiti (49), Patuxent (35), and Shaw Woods (12). Ichneumonine species richness was highest at the Maryland site: San Felasco (47), Tall Timbers (30), Hitchiti (44), Patuxent (68), and Shaw Woods (37). The results confirm reported trends that peak North American ichneumonid species richness lies at midlatitudes. However, they document greater biodiversity in the southern states and a broader peak than previously reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2021 and early 2022, four medications received emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration for outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease; these included nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) and molnupiravir (Lagevrio) (both oral antivirals), expanded use of remdesivir (Veklury; an intraveneous antiviral), and bebtelovimab (a monoclonal antibody [mAb]).* Reports have documented disparities in mAb treatment by race and ethnicity (1) and in oral antiviral treatment by zip code-level social vulnerability (2); however, limited data are available on racial and ethnic disparities in oral antiviral treatment. † Using electronic health record (EHR) data from 692,570 COVID-19 patients aged ≥20 years who sought medical care during January-July 2022, treatment with Paxlovid, Lagevrio, Veklury, and mAbs was assessed by race and ethnicity, overall and among high-risk patient groups. During 2022, the percentage of COVID-19 patients seeking medical care who were treated with Paxlovid increased from 0.6% in January to 20.2% in April and 34.3% in July; the other three medications were used less frequently (0.7%-5.0% in July). During April-July 2022, when Paxlovid use was highest, compared with White patients, Black or African American (Black) patients were prescribed Paxlovid 35.8% less often, multiple or other race patients 24.9% less often, American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (AIAN/NHOPI) patients 23.1% less often, and Asian patients 19.4% less often; Hispanic patients were prescribed Paxlovid 29.9% less often than non-Hispanic patients. Racial and ethnic disparities in Paxlovid treatment were generally somewhat higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19, including those aged ≥50 years and those who were immunocompromised. The expansion of programs focused on equitable awareness of and access to outpatient COVID-19 treatments, as well as COVID-19 vaccination, including updated bivalent booster doses, can help protect persons most at risk for severe illness and facilitate equitable health outcomes., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. William E. Trick reports institutional support from PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Anuradha Paranjape reports serving as the uncompensated president of the Association of Chiefs & Leaders of General Internal Medicine. Michael D. Kappelman reports consulting fees from Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Pfizer, and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson. Joshua L. Denson reports research funding from the American Diabetes Association, the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (Grant funding the Louisiana Clinical and Translational Science Center Roadmap Scholars Award). Thomas W. Carton and Jason P. Block report grant support from NIH, as part of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) research program. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.