Search

This paper discusses the lasting impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on research ethics in social sciences by focusing on the concept of vulnerability. We unpack the current conceptualisations of vulnerability and their limitations and argue for the need to reconceptualise vulnerability as multidimensional, consisting of both universal and contextual dimensions, as well as their dynamic interplay. Multidimensional vulnerability is inspired by and relevant to social science research during the pandemic but can also be useful in other contexts such as climate change or conflict. The paper puts forwards several considerations about how this revised concept of vulnerability may be useful when evaluating ethical dimensions of social science research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we present the results of a scoping review in which we examined the scientific literature (2010–2021) on faith-based organizations (FBOs) working within the field of poverty alleviation, focusing on the way studies define and use the term FBO. Fifty-two relevant studies were identified and included. Our research shows that the term FBOs is primarily used in American studies. Moreover, there is no broad consensus on the exact definition or meaning of the term nor on its scope. Because of this lack of consensus and the inherent shortcomings of the term, we suggest to replace the term FBO by the term "religion-based solidarity initiatives" (RSIs), We define RSIs as: "Initiatives that, from a religious inspiration, aim at organizing collective action for and/or providing support or services to people in vulnerable positions." These initiatives can range from small scale ad hoc initiatives till large scale formal organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite significant progress in research on the treatment and prevention of psychological, behavioral, and health problems, the translation of this knowledge into population-wide benefit remains limited. This paper reviews the state of America's children and families, highlighting the influence of stressful contextual and social conditions on child and family well-being and the concentration of disadvantage in numerous neighborhoods and communities throughout the nation. It then briefly reviews the progress that has been made in pinpointing policies that can reduce stressful contextual conditions such as poverty, discrimination, and the marketing of unhealthful foods and substances. It also describes numerous family and school interventions that have proven benefit in preventing psychological and behavioral problems as diverse as tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use; depression; antisocial behavior; academic failure; obesity prevention; and early childbearing. We argue that progress in translating existing knowledge into widespread benefit will require a nationwide effort to intervene comprehensively in neighborhoods and communities of concentrated disadvantage. We present a strategic plan for how such an effort could be organized. The first step in this organizing would be the creation of a broad and diverse coalition of organizations concerned with advancing public health and well-being. Such a coalition could increase public support both for the policies needed to focus on these disadvantaged areas and the research needed to incrementally improve our ability to help these areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This paper is a report on a study exploring a potential typology of primary care patients referred for integrated behavioral health care (IBHC) services. We considered whether primary care patients could be grouped into meaningful clusters based on perceived need for behavioral health services, barriers to accessing care, and past-year service utilization. We also described the development of a working partnership between our university-based research team and a federally qualified health center (FQHC).Method: A total of 105 adult primary care patients referred for same-day behavioral health appointments completed a brief self-report questionnaire assessing past-year behavioral health concerns, service utilization, and perceived barriers to utilization.Results: Hierarchical and k-means cluster analyses revealed 3 groups: (a) Well-Served patients, characterized by high perceived need for services, high service use, and low barriers to service use (40%); (b) Underserved patients, characterized by high perceived need, low service utilization, and high barriers to service use (20%); and (c) Subclinical patients, characterized by low perceived need, low service use, and low barriers to service use (20%). Clusters were reliably differentiated by age, primary language, insurance status, and global functioning.Discussion: We found primary care patients could be grouped into 3 categories and that 60% (Underserved and Subclinical) represented groups less commonly seen in traditional mental health (MH) settings. IBHC may be a promising approach for extending the reach of MH care, and partnerships between FQHCs and university-based research teams may be a promising approach for conducting research on the IBHC service-delivery model. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]