Provider perceptions of availability, accessibility, and adequacy of health and behavioral services for Latino immigrants in Philadelphia: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Latino populations in the United States are disproportionately affected by substance use, HIV/AIDS, violence, and mental health issues (SAVAME). A growing body of evidence demonstrates the syndemic nature of SAVAME and the need for integrated strategies to reduce their impact. This study sought to understand the network of SAVAME services for Latino immigrants in Philadelphia to inform future interventions for SAVAME prevention and mitigation. METHODOLOGY: Key informant interviews (N = 30) were conducted with providers working in Latino-serving organizations providing SAVAME services. Interviews were analyzed using thematic coding and grounded theory. RESULTS: Latino-serving providers perceived a large need for, and important limitations in the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of SAVAME services for Latino immigrants. Gaps were seen as especially acute for mental health and substance use services, partly because of insufficient funding for these services. Latino immigrants' lack of health insurance, immigration status, limited English proficiency (LEP), stigma surrounding SAVAME issues, and limited knowledge of available services were identified as significant barriers preventing access to services. Providers noted that scarcity of well-trained, culturally competent, and ethnically concordant providers reduced the adequacy of SAVAME services for Latino immigrant clients. The small size, low levels of infrastructure, and limited capacity were reported as additional factors limiting the ability of many Latino-serving organizations to adopt a syndemic approach in the prevention and treatment of SAVAME services. CONCLUSIONS: The results call for changes in the structure of funding streams and communitywide strategies to foster collaboration across SAVAME providers working with Latino immigrant clients.

The Impact of Keeping Indoor Dining Closed on COVID-19 Rates Among Large US Cities: A Quasi-Experimental Design.

BACKGROUND: Indoor dining is one of the potential drivers of COVID-19 transmission. We used the heterogeneity among state government preemption of city indoor dining closures to estimate the impact of keeping indoor dining closed on COVID-19 incidence. METHODS: We obtained case rates and city or state reopening dates from March to October 2020 in 11 US cities. We categorized cities as treatment cities that were allowed by the state to reopen but kept indoor dining closed or comparison cities that would have kept indoor dining closed but that were preempted by their state and had to reopen indoor dining. We modeled associations using a difference-in-difference approach and an event study specification. We ran negative binomial regression models, with city-day as the unit of analysis, city population as an offset, and controlling for time-varying nonpharmaceutical interventions, as well as city and time fixed effects in sensitivity analysis and the event study specification. RESULTS: Keeping indoor dining closed was associated with a 55% (IRR = 0.45; 95% confidence intervals = 0.21, 0.99) decline in the new COVID-19 case rate over 6 weeks compared with cities that reopened indoor dining, and these results were consistent after testing alternative modeling strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Keeping indoor dining closed may be directly or indirectly associated with reductions in COVID-19 spread. Evidence of the relationship between indoor dining and COVID-19 case rates can inform policies to restrict indoor dining as a tailored strategy to reduce COVID-19 incidence. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B902.