Suchergebnisse

Background: In health disparities research, studies often fall short of their recruitment goals. Conducting a pilot feasibility study of recruitment in which data are collected systematically on recruitment processes can help investigators refine methods for the larger study. However, there are few guide­lines for conducting pilot feasibility studies, and recruitment methods are seldom the focus. Feasibility indicators differ from traditional reports of recruitment results by focusing on the extent to which recruitment goals are met.Methods: We present an organizing frame­work for assessing the feasibility of recruit­ment that includes eight steps, briefly: 1) specify recruitment goals; 2) specify recruit­ment processes; 3) establish a tracking sys­tem for each individual; 4) establish a track­ing database for monitoring processes and results; 5) implement recruitment and track each individual's progress; 6) summarize re­cruitment results; 7) calculate and interpret feasibility measures - were goals met; and 8) if goals were not met, utilize tracking data to modify methods for the larger study. We describe methods within each step, with added details for steps 2-5 (the specific pro­cesses). The framework draws from a small literature on recruitment feasibility with a focus on health disparities populations. The guidelines blend well-known methods of recruitment with additional information on calculating feasibility indicators.Conclusion: These guidelines provide a first step in thinking systematically about recruitment feasibility, to advance the field of measuring feasibility. Feasibility indicators also can be used to track the effectiveness of innovative recruitment strategies as part of building the science of recruitment, es­pecially in disparities populations. Ethn Dis. 2020; 30(Suppl 2):745-754; doi:10.18865/ed.30.S2.745

AbstractCOVID-related discrimination towards historically marginalized racial-ethnic groups in the United States has been well-documented; however, its impact on psychological distress and sleep (overall and within specific racial-ethnic groups) is largely unknown. We used data from our nationally representative, online survey of 5,500 American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Latino, White, and multiracial adults, conducted from 12/2020-2/2021. Participants were asked how often they experienced discriminatory behaviors "because they think you might have COVID-19" (modified Everyday Discrimination Scale). Psychological distress was captured as having experienced anxiety-depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionairre-4, PHQ-4), perceived stress (modified Perceived Stress Scale), or loneliness-isolation ("How often have you felt lonely and isolated?"). Sleep disturbances were measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System Short Form Sleep Disturbance scale (PROMIS-SF 4a). Overall, 22.1% reported COVID-related discriminatory behaviors (sometimes/always: 9.7%; rarely: 12.4%). 48.4% of participants reported anxiety-depression symptoms (moderate/severe: 23.7% mild: 24.8%), 62.4% reported feeling stressed (moderate/severe: 34.3%; mild: 28,1%), 61.0% reported feeling lonely-isolated (fairly often/very often: 21.3%; almost never/sometimes: 39.7%), and 35.4% reported sleep disturbances (moderate/severe:19.8%; mild: 15.6%). Discrimination was only associated with increased psychological distress among racial-ethnic minorities. For example, COVID-related discrimination was strongly associated with anxiety-depression among Black/African American adults (mild: aOR=2.12, 95% CI=1.43-5.17; moderate/severe: aOR=5.19, 95% CI=3.35-8.05), but no association was observed among White or multiracial adults. Mitigating pandemic-related discrimination could help alleviate mental and sleep health disparities occurring among minoritized racial-ethnic groups.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the sleep-cardiovascular health (CVH) association varies by Hispanic/Latino heritage group and housing tenure status (i.e., homeownership, unassisted housing, government-assisted housing), which is an important social determinant of health DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of pooled National Health Interview Survey (2004–2017) data SETTING: United States PARTICIPANTS: US-born/non-US-born Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central/South American, and US-born non-Hispanic (NH)-White adults MEASUREMENTS: Within each housing tenure category, Poisson regressions with robust variance estimated the adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of (1) habitual sleep duration (9-hours vs. 7–9 hours) and sleep quality for Hispanic/Latino heritage groups compared to NH-Whites and (2) ideal CVH for Hispanic/Latino heritage groups within each sleep duration category, separately, compared to NH-Whites who reported 7–9 hours sleep duration. RESULTS: Among 283,767 NH-White and Hispanic/Latino adults (mean age=47.0±0.09 years, 50.1% female), 33% rented housing (4% government-assisted; 29% unassisted), and 67% were homeowners. Compared to their NH-White housing tenure counterparts, only Puerto Rican homeowners were more likely to report 9-hours sleep duration and poor sleep quality compared to NH-Whites. Disparities in CVH were large between Puerto Rican unassisted renters and homeowners who reported >9-hours of habitual sleep compared to their NH-White housing tenure counterparts who reported 7–9 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic/Latino-White disparities in the sleep-CVH relationship may vary by Hispanic/Latino heritage group and housing tenure.