RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper was to measure if people with greater "structural literacy," as indicated by greater awareness of racial and socioeconomic disparities in COVID-19 impact, would hold fewer negative attitudes against those perceived to be Asian in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A survey was administered between April and August 2020 to participants from two longitudinal cohorts in New York State. The survey assessed anti-Asian attitudes relating to COVID-19, awareness of racial and socioeconomic disparities in COVID-19, residential location, socioeconomic status, and other demographic information. The sample included 233 Black, Latinx, and White midlife adults from urban, suburban, and rural New York neighborhoods. Multivariable regression modeling was used to assess associations between COVID-19 disparities awareness, an indicator of structural literacy, and anti-Asian attitudes, adjusting for gender, race/ethnicity, residential location, and socioeconomic disadvantage. RESULTS: Greater awareness of disparities in COVID-19 was associated with lower levels of anti-Asian attitudes after adjustment (adj-slope = - 0.358, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Greater structural literacy, as measured by awareness of socioeconomic and racial disparities in COVID-19 impact, was associated with fewer anti-Asian attitudes among Black, Latinx, and White adults. IMPLICATIONS: Increasing structural literacy may reduce anti-Asian attitudes that motivate harmful acts against oppressed groups.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. PARTICIPANTS: Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables. RESULTS: 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.