Tweets That Matter: Exploring the Solutions to Maternal Mortality in the United States Discussed by Advocacy Organizations on Twitter.

This study investigated maternal mortality solutions mentioned on Twitter by maternal health advocacy organizations in the United States. Using qualitative content analysis, we examined tweets from 20 advocacy organizations and found that the majority of the tweets focused on policy, healthcare, community, and individual solutions. The most tweeted policy solutions include tweets advocating signing birth equity, paid family leave, Medicaid expansion, and reproductive justice bills, whereas the most tweeted community solutions were funding community organizations, hiring community doulas, and building community health centers. The most tweeted individual solutions were storytelling, self-advocacy, and self-care. These findings provide insights into the perspectives and priorities of advocacy organizations working to address maternal mortality in the United States and can inform future efforts to combat this critical public health issue.

Furloughed Employees' Voluntary Turnover: The Role of Procedural Justice, Job Insecurity, and Job Embeddedness.

During the COVID-19 lockdown period, several employers used furloughs, that is, temporary layoffs or unpaid leave, to sustain their businesses and retain their employees. While furloughs allow employers to reduce payroll costs, they are challenging for employees and increase voluntary turnover. This study uses a two-wave model (Time 1: n = 639/Time 2: n = 379) and confirms that furloughed employees' perceived justice in furlough management and job insecurity (measured at Time 1) explain their decision to quit their employer (measured at Time 2). In addition, our results confirm that furloughed employees' job embeddedness (measured at Time 1) has a positive mediator effect on the relationship between their perceived procedural justice in furlough management (measured at Time 1) and their turnover decision (Time 2). We discuss the contribution of this study to the fields of knowledge and practice related to turnover and furlough management to reduce their financial, human, and social costs.

On order and disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this paper, we analyse the conditions under which the COVID-19 pandemic will lead either to social order (adherence to measures put in place by authorities to control the pandemic) or to social disorder (resistance to such measures and the emergence of open conflict). Using examples from different countries (principally the United Kingdom, the United States, and France), we first isolate three factors which determine whether people accept or reject control measures. These are the historical context of state-public relations, the nature of leadership during the pandemic and procedural justice in the development and operation of these measures. Second, we analyse the way the crisis is policed and how forms of policing determine whether dissent will escalate into open conflict. We conclude by considering the prospects for order/disorder as the pandemic unfolds.

COVID-19 and the ethical issues of justice and rationing in health care, with particular regard to the Italian experience / Az igazságosság és a besorolás etikai problémái az egészségügyben, különös tekintettel a COVID-19-járvány olaszországi tapasztalataira.

Összefoglaló. A 2020. év elején kirobbant COVID-19-világjárvány többek között ráirányította a figyelmet az életmento-életfenntartó kezelések igazságos elosztásának érzékeny kérdésére is. Európán belül elsoként Olaszországot sújtotta a katasztrófa, a válsághelyzetben pedig az érzéstelenítés, fájdalomcsillapítás, újraélesztés és intenzív ellátás területén tevékenykedo szakemberek olasz társasága, a SIAARTI 2020. március 6-án közzétett egy 15 pontos ajánlást. E szerint utilitarista megközelítéssel a rendelkezésre álló szukös eroforrásokat azon betegek kezelésére kellene fordítani, akik túlélési esélye nagyobb, valamint több életévre számíthatnak a jövoben, mert ez biztosíthatja a leheto legtöbb ember számára a leheto legnagyobb hasznot. A javaslat komoly szakmai vitát robbantott ki, amely egyértelmuvé tette, hogy az orvosi eszközök igazságos elosztására vonatkozó diskurzust feltétlenül folytatni kell, nemcsak Olaszországon belül, hanem a pandémiától sújtott többi államban is. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(45): 1899-1907. Summary. Among other queries, the explosion of the COVID-19 pandemic at the beginning of 2020 has firmly put in focus the sensitive issue of how to allocate scarcely available life-saving treatments in a fair and just manner. The first European country to face an emergency caused by the pandemic was Italy. In a rapidly escalating crisis, on 6th March 2020, the Italian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) issued a series of 15 recommendations, suggesting that a utilitarian approach should be adopted in Italian health care and the extremely scarce resources should be reserved for patients with a greater probability of survival and life expectancy, in order to maximize the benefits for the largest possible number of people. The recommendations generated a heated debate among health care professionals, thereby evidencing that similar discussions must be initiated and pursued in all countries affected by the pandemic. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(45): 1899-1907.

Ethical considerations of the vaccine development process and vaccination: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various vaccines have been developed and distributed worldwide to control and cope with COVID-19 disease. To ensure vaccines benefit the global community, the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence, and autonomy should be examined and adhered to in the process of development, distribution, and implementation. This study, therefore, aimed to examine ethical considerations of vaccine development and vaccination processes. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was conducted based on the Arkesy and O'Malley protocol to identify eligible studies published until November 2021. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and SciELO databases. The search was conducted using combinations of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms and keywords for Ethics, COVID-19, and vaccines in abstract, keywords, and title fields to retrieve potentially relevant publications. We included any study that reported one of the four principles of medical ethics: autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence in the COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution and implementation of vaccinations. Letters, notes, protocols, and brief communications were excluded. In addition, we searched gray literature to include relevant studies (ProQuest database, conferences, and reports). Data were analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: In total, 43 studies were included. Ethical considerations concluded two themes: (1) production and (2) distribution and vaccination. The production process consisted of 16 codes and 4 main Categories, distribution and vaccination process consisted of 12 codes and 4 main Categories. Moreover, the ethical considerations of special groups were divided into four main groups: health care workers (HCWs) (five codes), children and adolescents (five codes), the elderly (one code), and ethnic and racial minorities (three codes). CONCLUSION: Due to the externalities of pandemics and the public and social benefits and harms of vaccination, it is not feasible to adhere to all four principles of medical ethics simultaneously and perfectly. This issue confronts individuals and policymakers with several moral dilemmas. It seems that decision-making based on the balance between social benefit and social harm is a better criterion in this regard, and the final decision should be made based on maximizing the public benefit and minimizing the public harm.

Locating Disability Within a Health Justice Framework.

This Article explores the connections between disability and health justice in service of further tethering the two theories and practices. The author contends that disability should shift from marker of health inequity alone to critical demographic in the analytical and practical application of health justice. This theoretical move creates a more robust understanding of the harms of health injustice, its complexities, and, remedially, reveals underexplored legal and policy pathways to promote health justice.

Green space justice amid COVID-19: Unequal access to public green space across American neighborhoods.

Countries around the world have resorted to issuing stay-at-home orders to slow viral transmission since the COVID-19 pandemic. During the lockdown, access to public park plays a central role in the public health of surrounding communities. However, we know little about how such an unprecedented policy may exacerbate the preexisting unequal access to green space (i.e., green space justice). To address this research void, we used difference-in-difference models to examine socioeconomic disparities, urban-rural disparities, and mobility disparities in terms of public park access in the United States. Our national analysis using the weekly mobile phone movement data robustly suggests the following three key findings during COVID-19: (1) The elderly, non-college-educated people, poor people, and blacks are less likely to visit public parks frequently, while unemployed people appear to be the opposite. (2) Compared to rural areas, populations in urban neighborhoods appear to visit public parks more frequently and they generally go to larger parks to minimize the risk of infection. (3) Populations in neighborhoods with higher private vehicle ownership or those with a higher density of transit stops would more frequently visit and travel a longer distance to public parks during the stay-at-home order. Our results imply that conventional inequality in green space access may still exist and even become worse during COVID-19, which could negatively impact people's health during isolation. We suggest that special attention should be paid to park-poor neighborhoods during the pandemic and in the post-pandemic recovery phase.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Integrating Public Health Research and Teaching With Social Justice Activism: Lessons From 80 Years of Practice.

In this commentary, we reflect on the lessons we have learned from our successes and failures in aligning the roles of scholars and activists. Our hope is to provide insights that can guide public health students, faculty, practitioners, and activists seeking to chart their professional, political, and personal futures in today's polarized and catastrophe-burdened world. Several experiences motivate us to write this commentary now. In the last few years, inspired in part by the new activism against systemic racism sparked by the murder of George Floyd and others, growing climate emergencies, the COVID pandemic, anti-immigrant politics, increasing anti-Asian acts of violence, gun bloodshed, attacks on the right to reproductive and sexual health, resurgence of interest in worker organizing, and the ongoing quest for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTQI+) rights, we are impressed by the number of young people engaged in activism to defend and expand their rights and show that another world is possible.

Pandemic justice: fairness, social inequality and COVID-19 healthcare priority-setting.

A comprehensive understanding of the ethics of the COVID-19 pandemic priorities must be sensitive to the influence of social inequality. We distinguish between ex-ante and ex-post relevance of social inequality for COVID-19 disadvantage. Ex-ante relevance refers to the distribution of risks of exposure. Ex-post relevance refers to the effect of inequality on how patients respond to infection. In the case of COVID-19, both ex-ante and ex-post effects suggest a distribution which is sensitive to the prevalence social inequality. On this basis, we provide a generic fairness argument for the claim that welfare states ought to favour a healthcare priority scheme that gives particular weight to protecting the socially disadvantaged.

Civic Engagement to Empower Young People to Impact Health and Well-Being.

Civic engagement is positively associated with important health and developmental benefits for participating adolescents and young adults. As illustrated by youth political participation, social activism, and rallies for racial justice during the COVID-19 pandemic, youth civic engagement is often inspired by and responsive to problems that are salient to a young person's lived experiences. Providers can empower youth and encourage civic engagement by eliciting issues that are important to them and directing them to community resources and opportunities for civic participation that can help them address these issues.

New considerations of health disparities within allergy and immunology.

The pandemic, political upheavals, and social justice efforts in our society have resulted in attention to persistent health disparities and the urgent need to address them. Using a scoping review, we describe published updates to address disparities and targets for interventions to improve gaps in care within allergy and immunology. These disparities-related studies provide a broad view of our current understanding of how social determinants of health threaten patient outcomes and our ability to advance health equity efforts in our field. We outline next steps to improve access to care and advance health equity for patients with allergic/immunologic diseases through actions taken at the individual, community, and policy levels, which could be applied outside of our field. Key among these are efforts to increase the diversity among our trainees, providers, and scientific teams and enhancing efforts to participate in advocacy work and public health interventions. Addressing health disparities requires advancing our understanding of the interplay between social and structural barriers to care and enacting the needed interventions in various key areas to effect change.