Pulse Oximeters and Violation of Federal Antidiscrimination Law.

This Viewpoint discusses how some pulse oximeters can provide incorrect oxygen saturation data for dark-skinned patients compared with light-skinned patients, describes the reasons that biased oximeters remained in use, and highlights why a rule recently proposed by the US Department of Health and Human Services may bring about needed change in the use of pulse oximetry for patients with dark skin.

Lessons Learned from Health Disparities in Coronavirus Disease-2019 in the United States.

In the United States, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionally affected Black, Latinx, and Indigenous populations, immigrants, and economically disadvantaged individuals. Such historically marginalized groups are more often employed in low-wage jobs without health insurance and have higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 than non-Latinx White individuals. Mistrust in the health care system, language barriers, and limited health literacy have hindered vaccination rates in minorities, further exacerbating health disparities rooted in structural, institutional, and socioeconomic inequities. In this article, we discuss the lessons learned over the last 2 years and how to mitigate health disparities moving forward.

Ableism, Human Rights, and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Healthcare-Related Barriers Experienced by Deaf People in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected global healthcare access and exacerbated pre-pandemic structural barriers. Literature on disabled people's experiences accessing healthcare is limited, with even less framing healthcare access as a human rights issue. This study documents and critically analyses Deaf people's healthcare access experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eleven self-identified Deaf individuals participated in semi-structured videoconferencing interviews. Discourse analysis was applied to participant narratives with discourses juxtaposed against a human rights analysis. Barriers influencing healthcare access included: (1) the inability of healthcare providers to communicate appropriately, including a rigid adherence to face mask use; (2) cultural insensitivity and limited awareness of Deaf people's unique needs; and (3) the impact of ableist assumptions and healthcare delaying care. Barriers to healthcare access represent consecutive breaches of rights guaranteed under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Such breaches delay appropriate healthcare access and risk creating future compounding effects. Action is required to address identified breaches: (1) The CRPD should also underpin all health policy and practice development, inclusive of pandemic and disaster management responsiveness. (2) Health professionals and support staff should be trained, and demonstrate competency, in Deaf cultural awareness and sensitivity.

Ableism and Contours of the Attitudinal Environment as Identified by Adults with Long-Term Physical Disabilities: A Qualitative Study.

Adults with physical disabilities experience a continuum of enabling and disabling attitudes in the environment. This study identified where adults with physical disabilities experience the attitudinal environment, the continuum of those attitudes, and how they impact emotional and psychological health and well-being. Focus groups and interviews were conducted in 2019 and 2020 with adults with physical disabilities in southeastern Michigan in the United States. Participants discussed environmental factors that impact healthy aging. From an initial thematic coding of narratives, the attitudinal environment was identified. Transcripts were recoded and analyzed focusing on societal attitudes. Qualitative analyses revealed that participants did not experience societal attitudes as simply positive or negative, and that the contexts in which these attitudes were expressed were not limited to interpersonal interactions. Rather, these attitudes were also experienced in the built environment and through social institutions and organizations and their programs, systems, and structures that provide or deny needed accommodations, resources, and support. The spectrum of overlapping attitudes that participants articulated ranged from understanding and supportive, to not understanding, to being viewed and treated as less than human. Societal structures reflect and influence societal attitudes and have material consequences on the lives of adults with physical disabilities.

Ableism at the Bedside: People with Intellectual Disabilities and COVID-19.

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities have a higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 than the general population. Providers may assume that this is due to the burden of comorbidities for this population; however, the disparity in mortality persists even when controlling for comorbidities. We review the current policies and practices that may be contributing to this higher level of mortality. We contend that pervasive ableism among medical providers leads to a variation in the medical care options that are provided to people with intellectual disabilities and their families. Due to this bias, poor outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We make recommendations to address the modifiable factors that are contributing to the higher level of mortality for people with intellectual disabilities who are infected with COVID-19, provide strategies to combat ableism within the medical field, and discuss the unique role of the primary care physician as an advocate.

Commentary on the special issue on disproportionate exposure to trauma: Trauma, stress, and adversities and health disparities among disenfranchised groups globally during the COVID pandemic.

The papers in this Journal of Traumatic Stress special issue on disproportionate adversity cover the gamut of discrimination traumas and stressors, including microaggressions, a more insidious forms of discrimination, and their often-devastating and wide-ranging mental health sequelae, in disproportionately affected disenfranchised groups. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation commonly confers cumulative and chronic effects. In the field of traumatic stress studies, several types of identity-linked traumatic events have been identified and empirically investigated as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-producing experiences. Collectively, the 13 papers included in this special issue raise questions about the definition, conceptualization, and categorization of various forms of explicit and implicit identity-linked trauma. These papers highlight the need for acceptance of a shared nomenclature and better differentiation of both causal and correlational associations with acute and chronic PTSD, depression, suicide risk, alcohol misuse, and other mental health outcomes. In this commentary, the discussion is extended to COVID-19, a disease that has been globally devastating for many. On multiple levels (i.e., physical, mental, emotional, economic, and social), COVID-19 has magnified the prepandemic fault lines of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Applying a syndemic framework to the health impact of COVID-19 and, arguably, the most pervasive identity linked epidemic worldwide-systemic racism-brings perspective to the biological and social forces that are likely to be driving the convergence of COVID-19, systemic racism, and chronic health inequities, and may be informative in guiding evidence-based strategies for managing racial trauma in the context of COVID-19.

Ruthless Utilitarianism? COVID-19 State Triage Protocols May Subject Patients to Racial Discrimination and Providers to Legal Liability.

As the coronavirus pandemic intensified, many communities in the United States experienced shortages of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other medical supplies and treatments. Currently, there is no single national response to provide guidance on allocation of scarce health care resources. Accordingly, states have formulated various "triage protocols" to prioritize those who will receive care and those who may not have the same access to health care services when the population demand exceeds the supply. Triage protocols address general concepts of "fairness" under accepted medical ethics rules and the consensus is that limited medical resources "should be allocated to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people."1 The actual utility of this utilitarian ethics approach is questionable, however, leaving many questions about what is "fair" unanswered. Saving as many people as possible during a health care crisis is a laudable goal but not at the expense of ignoring patients's legal rights, which are not suspended during the crisis. This Article examines the triage protocols from six states to determine whose rights are being recognized and whose rights are being denied, answering the pivotal question: If there is potential for disparate impact of facially neutral state triage protocols against Black Americans and other ethnic groups, is this legally actionable discrimination? This may be a case of first impression for the courts to resolve."[B]lack Americans are 3.5 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than [W]hite Americans … . Latinx people are almost twice as likely to die of the disease, compared with [W]hite people." 2 "Our civil rights laws protect the equal dignity of every human life from ruthless utilitarianism … . HHS is committed to leaving no one behind during an emergency, and this guidance is designed to help health care providers meet that goal." - Roger Severino, Office of Civil Rights Director, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3.

Social Distance in COVID-19: Drawing the line between protective behavior and stigma manifestation.

Social stigma has long been defined by Ervin Goffman as an attribute that it is deeply discrediting and reduces the individual who bears it from a whole and usual person to a tarnished one, unfit to be included into the mainstream society.1 As stigma spans time and space and has been documented in other social species such as ants and chimpanzees, one might argue for its adaptive potential. Neuberg and colleagues2 have suggested that humans generate stigmas against threats to effective group functioning, with a notable case being infectious diseases. A similar explanation has been put forward by other researchers who consider stigma to have evolved from disease-avoidance mechanisms.3 Hence, it is not surprising that tuberculosis, HIV and leprosy have been surrounded by stigma and discrimination.4,5 More recently, people who had survived the 2013-2016 Ebola outbreak tackled social exclusion and unemployment after returning to their neighborhoods.6 Nowadays, the global community faces an unprecedented challenge of grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic. From the very outset, social distance measures were introduced in order to contain the spread of the virus, ranging from maintaining 1.5 meters physical distance to strict lockdowns. However, this may easily escalate into stigmatizing and discriminatory behaviours (desired social distance is a proxy of discrimination) against people who have suffered from COVID-19, their relatives and their caregivers, with the United Nations stating that "fear, rumours and stigma" are the key challenges surrounding COVID-19.7 Apart from the psychological distress experienced by the stigmatized individuals, due to anticipated stigma people might start concealing their illness, avoid or delay seeking medical advice or testing until they are seriously ill and be reluctant to collaborate with authorities on tracing contacts. Therefore, timely identifying stigma and addressing it is an integral part of an effective health response to the ongoing pandemic. In spite of its importance, research on COVID-19 related stigma is scarce. From the perspective of the stigmatized individuals, a study in China8 demonstrated that COVID-19 survivors faced heightened levels of overall stigma, social rejection, financial insecurity, internalized shame and social isolation, compared to healthy controls. From the perspective of the general population, a study in US9 substantiated low levels of anticipated stigma and stereotype endorsement; however, respondents who anticipated greater stigma were less likely to seek a COVID-19 test. It is therefore clear that the international literature is still on its infancy with respect to COVID-19 related stigma. In this context, in the First Department of Psychiatry, University of Athens, we conducted a survey on public attitudes to COVID-19 and to mental disorders. The study would inform the design and implementation of anti-stigma initiatives, funded by the Regional Governor of Attica. As physical distancing and social distancing are interwoven, with some researchers and practitioners using the terms interchangeably, and social distancing is also a protective public health measure against COVID-19, we enquired about attitudes and desired social distance from people who had recovered from COVID-19. Nonetheless, it merits noting that evidence from other diseases indicates that stigma may persist even after recovery.10 Moreover, rather than describing public attitudes overall, we were more interested in investigating where COVID-19 related stigma stands as compared to the most stigmatizing health condition to date, i.e., severe mental illness.11 Interestingly enough, which elements of severe mental illness render it the most stigmatized as compared to other conditions is still speculative: is it the fear of madness? the severity and the type of symptoms? the purported incurability or its chronicity? In our study, evidence from a convenience sample of 370 residents of Attica indicates that the general population holds more negative attitudes towards people who have recovered from COVID-19 than towards people with mental disorders. Nonetheless, respondents reported lower levels of desired social distance from recovered COVID-19 cases as compared to mental illness cases in social interactions of graded intimacy; however, the difference between the two groups was found to decrease as the level of intimacy decreased as well. In other words, desired social distance from COVID-19 cases is more easily discernible in transient social encounters, like talking to a stranger. It is therefore clear that social distance is still a public health protective measure rather than a stigma manifestation. For social encounters of greater intimacy, usually a sign of discriminatory behaviours, having recovered from COVID-19 is not a deterrent to interaction. Findings can be explained by the acute (non-chronic) nature of the disease, both in terms of symptoms as well as the 10-day period since symptom onset for being contagious. Nonetheless, with emerging evidence substantiating the notion of long COVID-19, defined as the persistence of symptoms for 3 weeks after infection,12 this might quickly change. Moreover, with many public health protective measures available, such as the use of mask, diagnostic testing and vaccination, people who become infected are more likely to be blamed for contracting the disease and thus deemed responsible for this, in line with the Attribution Theory.13 Specifically, overarching evidence from stigma research in many diseases/conditions indicates that when an illness or a social condition, such as economic disadvantage, is attributed to internal causes, as compared to external, lay people are more likely to hold stigmatizing attitudes.14-16 Therefore, as attitudes towards COVID-19 are worse compared to those towards people with mental illness, if tailored anti-stigma action is not undertaken, it is only a matter of time for prejudices to evolve into discriminatory behaviours, with devastating consequences on both the individuals and the course of the pandemic. Concomitantly, as severe mental illness is neither life threatening nor contagious, but COVID-19 is, it is interesting to explore how stigma is related to evolutionary mechanisms favouring adaptability and survival as well as which elements are the drivers of stigma development and establishment. Therefore, comparing and contrasting the stigma surrounding these conditions may shed light on the underpinnings of social stigma and facilitate effective interventions to reduce it and eventually eliminate it.

Barriers to Accessing Healthy Food and Food Assistance During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Racial Justice Uprisings: A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Emerging Adults' Experiences.

BACKGROUND: A steep rise in food insecurity is among the most pressing US public health problems that has resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) describe how food-insecure emerging adults are adapting their eating and child-feeding behaviors during COVID-19 and (2) identify barriers and opportunities to improve local food access and access to food assistance. DESIGN: The COVID-19 Eating and Activity Over Time study collected survey data from emerging adults during April to October 2020 and completed interviews with a diverse subset of food-insecure respondents. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: A total of 720 emerging adults (mean age: 24.7 ± 2.0 years; 62% female; 90% living in Minnesota) completed an online survey, and a predominately female subsample (n = 33) completed an interview by telephone or videoconference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey measures included the short-form of the US Household Food Security Survey Module and 2 items to assess food insufficiency. Interviews assessed eating and feeding behaviors along with barriers to healthy food access. ANALYSES PERFORMED: Descriptive statistics and a hybrid deductive and inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Nearly one-third of survey respondents had experienced food insecurity in the past year. Interviews with food-insecure participants identified 6 themes with regard to changes in eating and feeding behavior (eg, more processed food, sporadic eating), 5 themes regarding local food access barriers (eg, limited enforcement of COVID-19 safety practices, experiencing discrimination), and 4 themes regarding barriers to accessing food assistance (eg, lack of eligibility, difficulty in locating pantries). Identified recommendations include (1) expanding the distribution of information about food pantries and meal distribution sites, and (2) increasing fresh fruit and vegetable offerings at these sites. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions of specific relevance to COVID-19 (eg, stronger implementation of safety practices) and expanded food assistance services are needed to improve the accessibility of healthy food for emerging adults.

'Why are you not dead yet?' - dimensions and the main driving forces of stigma and discrimination among COVID-19 patients in Sri Lanka.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences, and main driving forces of stigma and discrimination among COVID-19 patients, following hospital discharge, in Sri Lanka. STUDY DESIGN: A qualitative study was used in order to gain insight and explore the depth and complexity of COVID-19 patients' experiences. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone in a purposively selected sample of 139 COVID-19 patients. Participants were interviewed during the first 3 weeks following discharge from four main state hospitals that were treating COVID-19 patients during the early phase of the pandemic. Questions on stigma and discrimination were open-ended, enabling patients to provide responses about their different experiences and settings; results were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The majority of participants were men (n = 80; 57.6%), with a mean age of 43 years (SD = 11.2). In total, up to one-third of the study participants experienced stigma related to COVID-19 and were discriminated against by the community, co-workers and healthcare workers in Sri Lanka. Social discrimination included barriers in accessing basic needs, insulting, blaming, defaming, spreading rumours and receiving no support during emergencies. Workplace discrimination included loss of jobs, not allowing re-entry and loss of earnings due to self-employment. Discrimination by healthcare workers included breaching of confidentiality, lack of respect, not providing health services and communication barriers. Discrimination has led to social isolation, not seeking help and severe psychosocial issues impacting their family relationships. Irresponsible media reporting and sensationalism of news coverage leading to breaching of privacy and confidentiality, defaming, false allegations and reporting household details without consent were perceived as the main factors underlying the views and opinions of the general public. CONCLUSIONS: Stigma and discrimination experienced by COVID-19 patients in society, workplaces and healthcare facilities have serious negative consequences at the individual and family level. Regulations on responsible media reporting, including an effective risk communication strategy to counteract its effects, are strongly recommended.

Healthcare workers' distress and perceived discrimination related to COVID-19 in Colombia.

This study examined the association of perceived discrimination related to COVID-19 with psychological distress in healthcare workers in the Colombian Caribbean region. The authors designed and conducted a cross-sectional study, recruiting a non-probabilistic sample by email or instant messaging. Participants filled out a questionnaire including scales for perceived discrimination, anxiety, depression, perceived stress related to COVID-19, and suicide risk. Healthcare workers (n = 150) aged 18 to 68 years participated; of these, 72% were women, and the breakdown by occupation was 39.3% nursing assistants, 18.0% nurses, and 42.7% physicians. Perceived discrimination scores showed positive correlations with depressive symptoms among nursing assistants and physicians (rs  = 0.34), and suicide risk in nursing assistants (rs  = 0.35) and physicians (rs  = 0.31). Among nurses, all measurements were independent of perceived discrimination. Nursing assistants scored highest in perceived discrimination. Physicians scored higher for COVID-19 perceived stress than nursing assistants, and nurses showed similar scores to physicians. In conclusion, perceived discrimination is related to depressive symptoms and suicide risk among nursing assistants and physicians. Nursing assistants report more perceived discrimination than nurses and physicians.