Advancing Antiracism in Community-Based Research Practices in Early Childhood and Family Mental Health.

Structural racism-the ways that institutional policies, practices, and other norms operate to create and sustain race-based inequities1-has historically been foundational to the operations of academic medical centers and research institutions. Since its inception, academic medicine has depended on the exploitation of vulnerable communities to achieve medical, educational, and research goals.2 Research practices have long ignored or taken advantage of the individuals purportedly benefiting from the research, a dynamic most manifestly true for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities in the United States. Reflecting current practices in racial justice work, we intentionally use the term "BIPOC" to highlight shared experiences within racially and ethnically minoritized communities, given the history of White supremacy in the United States. We acknowledge limitations of this term, which collapses myriad unique communities and histories into one construct. Specifically, child and adolescent psychiatry has historically been driven by Eurocentric approaches, paradigms, and methodology. These nonparticipatory dominant research practices have contributed to a lack of culturally responsive interventions for BIPOC communities, a paucity of evidence-based practices with demonstrated effectiveness within BIPOC communities, and disparities in access and quality of care.3 Mental health research involving BIPOC communities has been replete with exploitation and inequality.2.

How colleges intervene to increase student body vaccination coverage.

OBJECTIVE: The interventions colleges use to help students be compliant with vaccinations is unknown. This study describes colleges' use of practices consistent with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations to encourage student body vaccination. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were a convenience sample of 136 student health center (SHC) administrators from colleges across the U.S. METHODS: An online survey assessed SHCs' use of various practices, policies and services to improve student body vaccination coverage. RESULTS: There was wide variability in use of evidence-based interventions overall and with respect to specific vaccinations. While most SHCs (92.7%) coordinated vaccination outreach events on campus, only half (50%) accessed an immunization registry to verify vaccination histories. While 88.6% requested student vaccination histories for MMR, only 39.7% requested it for human papillomavirus (HPV). CONCLUSIONS: The discrepancies in SHC implementation of interventions to increase coverage of the recommended vaccinations for students suggest that helping colleges expand their capacity to intervene may decrease coverage rate disparities.

Vaccination coverage among young homeless children compared to US national immunization survey data.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive vaccination coverage among homeless children in the United States (US) is largely unknown although a few studies suggest low coverage with single vaccinations. This study compared vaccination coverage with a combined 7-vaccines series among homeless children in the District of Columbia (DC) to coverage among other US children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of homeless children in DC was conducted from 2018 to 2019. Recruitment occurred at housing shelters, social services centers, and a diaper dispensary, and through limited chain referral. English-speaking parents of a child aged 19 to 35 months who spent the majority of the last 30 nights homeless were recruited. Participants consented for their child's healthcare providers to submit vaccination records. The vaccination coverage estimate of this sample was compared with estimates of three populations in the 2018 National Immunization Survey (NIS): children in DC (NIS DC), children in the US (NIS US), and children in the US below the federal poverty level (NIS poor). RESULTS: Most of the 135 children had experienced at least two lifetime episodes (63.7%) and 12 months (57%) of homelessness. The estimated percent up to date was 52.6% (95% CI: 43.8%, 61.3%). This estimate was 20.4 (95% CI: 11.9, 28.8, p < .0001), 20 (95% CI: 11.5, 28.4, p < .0001), and 11.5 (95% CI: 3.1, 20, p < .01) percentage points lower than estimates for the NIS DC, NIS US and NIS poor populations, respectively. After adjusting for child's age and race/ethnicity, vaccination coverage of the NIS DC sample was below that of NIS US (p < .01) and NIS poor samples (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Children experiencing homelessness may be at risk of under-vaccination, even when compared to a general population of children in poverty. Awareness of this heightened risk may allow for more precise targeting of vaccination delivery support specifically to children experiencing homelessness.

Parental Beliefs, Logistical Challenges, and Improvement Opportunities for Vaccination among Children Ages 19-35 Months Experiencing Homelessness.

OBJECTIVES: To examine parental beliefs and logistical challenges to early childhood vaccination completion as well as opportunities to support improved vaccine uptake among families experiencing homelessness. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between February 2018 and October 2019 with parents of children ages 19-35 months old experiencing homelessness. Participants were recruited from 10 locations that serve families experiencing homelessness in Washington, DC and by referral from other participants. Vaccination records were obtained from health care providers to determine the child's up-to-date (UTD) status with a combined 7-vaccine series. RESULTS: Of 135 children of participants, only 69 (51.1%) were UTD. Most participants had at least 1 concern about childhood vaccines and at least 1 logistical barrier to completing vaccination (57% and 85.9%, respectively). The most frequent barriers were getting a convenient appointment time (46.3%), remembering appointments (44.8%), and commuting to appointments (44.4%). Although only 53.3% of the participants' children attended a licensed daycare center and only 43.7% received benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), use of either of these programs that routinely assess vaccination status was associated with over 3 times higher adjusted odds of being UTD (aOR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, and aOR 3.1, 95% CI 1.4-6.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Logistical barriers to accessing primary care services are common among children experiencing homelessness, underscoring the importance of health care providers offering vaccines at every opportunity. Government-regulated programs are useful for promoting vaccination, and enrollment should be encouraged because many children experiencing homelessness may not access them.

Serogroup B meningococcal vaccination practice patterns on college campuses.

BACKGROUND: Most Neisseria meningitidis involved in invasive disease among American college students express serogroup B antigen. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends healthcare providers (HCPs) share clinical decision making with patients to determine individual value of meningococcal serogroup B vaccination (MenB) rather than routinely recommend vaccination as with the meningococcal A,C,W,Y vaccine (MenACWY). This study examines the attitudes and practices of HCPs working in college student health centers (SHCs) regarding the recommendation and administration of MenB to students. METHODS: The study was conducted as an online and phone survey of SHC HCPs from a sample of colleges across the United States between May 2017 and July 2018. Items compared college SHC policies and practices for MenB to those for MenACWY. It also assessed perceived barriers to and facilitators of MenB delivery to students. RESULTS: Among the 147 respondents, almost 50% more reported their SHC stocked and administered MenACWY (54.1%) than MenB (37%) (p = .004). Almost five times as many colleges required their students receive MenACWY as MenB (53.5% vs. 10.5%, p < .001). A greater percentage requested students to submit records for MenACWY than MenB (77.3% vs. 46.9%, p < .001), and over three times as many tracked student-body coverage rates for MenACWY than MenB (55.6% vs. 15.8%, p < .001). Nearly three quarters of respondents estimated their college's student body MenB coverage rate to be ≤ 10% or were unable to provide any estimate. Factors perceived by over half of the participants as moderate to extreme barriers to administering MenB included high upfront costs for SHCs to purchase and stock MenB (68.7%), and high out-of-pocket costs for students to receive it (82.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of college SHCs require, offer or track Men B vaccination on their campuses. Financial concerns are common barriers to SHCs' stocking and administering MenB to students.