Search

Managing the health and safety risks surrounding COVID-19 in congregate settings, such as on college campuses, and minimizing viral transmission should be on the dashboard of Higher Education Leadership. Understanding that the risk will not be zero, like other academic institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have given great thought to making their campuses, which are considered high-risk settings, safe enough to warrant returning to campus. We queried HBCU leadership via an online survey sent to all 102 HBCUs about their safety plan for the fall 2020 resumption of on-campus activities. While data show that there are 102 HBCUs, we were informed that two HBCUs were permanently closed during our data gathering period. Thus, the sample size was 100.Specific areas queried included risks management plans, mitigation steps, policy changes, and human capacity resources. We also asked these leaders to identify vulnerabilities and other factors they considered in planning a safe reopening. Findings indicated that as these academic institutions grappled with balancing between risks and benefits of reopening, they also had to recognize the numerous scenarios and multifaceted approaches required. Recommendations are presented for supporting HBCUs in the future to surmount obstacles and implement culturally responsive solutions that best serve their campuses and surrounding communities in which these academic institutions are anchored.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately impacted communities of color (CoC) amid increasing incidents of racial injustices and racism. In this article, we describe our culturalist methodologies for designing and implementing a multi-ethnic, interdisciplinary national needs assessment developed in partnership with CoC. Instead of a typical western-centric social science approach that typically ignores and perpetuates structural racism and settler colonialism, the research team implemented culturalist and community-partnered approaches that were further contextualized to the context of structural racism and settler colonialism. The culturalist approach yielded two sets of themes both related to the impact of the pandemic on CoC. The first set involved syndemic factors that contribute to the adverse impact of COVID-19. These include historical trauma; racism, racial stress, and discrimination; and cultural mistrust. The second set consisted of factors that potentially mitigate the impact of the COVID-19. These include cultural protective factors; community engagement; communal ethos, and data disaggregation. Our methodologies and the resulting findings encourage research praxis that uplifts the shared effects of the social determinants of health while honoring unique cultural and contextual experiences-a lesson that social science researchers largely have yet to learn.

This study explored intersecting concerns about COVID-19 and racial injustice against Black people in the United States using a syndemic perspective. Findings from a multistate COVID-19 needs assessment project examined the association of general and race-related concerns about COVID-19 and concerns about police violence against Black people with mental health symptoms in a sample of 2480 Black Americans. The role of cultural mistrust in vaccination status was also examined. Concerns about COVID-19 were positively associated with concerns about police violence and associated with worse mental health. Nonvaccinated individuals were higher in cultural mistrust but lower in perceived discrimination than vaccinated individuals. Perceived discrimination partially mediated the relationship between race-related concerns about COVID-19 and mental health symptoms. Findings can inform the development of culturally responsive strategies to address the syndemic effects of COVID-19 and racial injustice.

The NIH-funded Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) program is currently funding 18 academic institutions to strengthen the research environment and contribution to health disparities research. The purpose of this multiphase mixed-methods study was to establish a uniform evaluation framework for demonstrating the collective success of this research consortium. Methods included discussions of aims and logic models at the RCMI Evaluators&rsquo, Workshop, a literature review to inform an evaluation conceptual framework, and a case study survey to obtain evaluation-related information and metrics. Ten RCMIs participated in the workshop and 14 submitted responses to the survey. The resultant RCMI Evaluation Conceptual Model presents a practical ongoing approach to document RCMIs&rsquo, impacts on health disparities. Survey results identified 37 common metrics under four primary categories. Evaluation challenges were issues related to limited human resources, data collection, decision-making, defining metrics, cost-sharing, and revenue-generation. There is a need for further collaborative efforts across RCMI sites to engage program leadership and community stakeholders in addressing the identified evaluation challenges and measurement. Program leadership should be engaged to apply the Evaluation Conceptual Framework and common metrics to allow for valid inter-institutional comparisons and consortium-wide evaluations. Stakeholders could ensure evaluation metrics are used to facilitate community impacts.