Age-related differences in the association between financial hardship and weight change during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To examine the association of financial hardship with weight changes in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We used data from the COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden survey, a nationally representative, cross-sectional, online survey of diverse adults living in the US, 12/2020-2/2021. This study included 1000 Asian, Black, Latino (half Spanish-speaking), and White adults and 500 American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and multiracial adults (5500 total). Age-specific (18-39, 40-59, ≥60) associations between financial hardship domains and weight change were estimated using multinomial logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and health characteristics. Results: Financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic was prevalent across all age groups (18-39: 76.2 %; 40-59: 75.6 %; ≥60: 50.6 %). Among adults aged 18-39 and ≥ 60 years old, food insecurity was significantly associated with weight loss (18-39: aOR = 1.42, 95 % CI = 1.04, 1.95; ≥60: aOR = 3.67, 95 % CI = 1.50, 8.98). Among all age groups, unmet healthcare expenses was also associated with weight loss (18-39: aOR = 1.31, 95 % CI = 1.01, 1.70; 40-59: aOR = 1.49, 95 % CI = 1.06, 2.08; ≥60: aOR = 1.73, 95 % CI = 1.03, 2.91). Among adults aged 18-39 and ≥ 60 years old, lost income was significantly associated with weight gain (18-39: aOR = 1.36, 95 % CI = 1.09-1.69; ≥60: aOR = 1.46, 95 % CI = 1.04, 2.06), and among adults 40-59 years old, experiencing increased debt was significantly associated with weight gain (aOR = 1.50, 95 % CI = 1.13, 1.99). Conclusions: For those aged 18-39 and ≥ 60 years old experiencing financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with both weight loss and weight gain. Less correlation was observed among adults aged 40-59.

Racial and ethnic disparities in the association between financial hardship and self-reported weight change during the first year of the pandemic in the U.S.

Studies have shown that financial hardship can impact weight change; however, it is unclear what the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has had on weight change in U.S. adults, or whether racial-ethnic groups were impacted differentially. We estimated the association between financial hardship and self-reported weight change using data from the cross-sectional COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden (CURB) survey, a nationally representative online survey of 5,500 American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Latino (English- and Spanish-speaking), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial adults conducted from 12/2020 to 2/2021. Financial hardship was measured over six domains (lost income, debt, unmet general expenses, unmet healthcare expenses, housing insecurity, and food insecurity). The association between each financial hardship domain and self-reported 3-level weight change variable were estimated using multinomial logistic regression, adjusting for sociodemographic and self-reported health. After adjustment, food insecurity was strongly associated with weight loss among American Indian/Alaska Native (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.05-4.77), Black/African American (aOR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.02-3.11), and Spanish-speaking Latino adults (aOR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.01-5.35). Unmet healthcare expenses were also strongly associated with weight loss among Black/African American, English-speaking Latino, Spanish-speaking Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander adults (aORs = 2.00-2.14). Other domains were associated with weight loss and/or weight gain, but associations were not as strong and less consistent across race-ethnicity. In conclusion, food insecurity and unmet healthcare expenses during the pandemic were strongly associated with weight loss among racial-ethnic minority groups. Using multi-dimensional measures of financial hardship provides a comprehensive assessment of the effects of specific financial hardship domains on weight change among diverse racial-ethnic groups.

Positive and negative aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic among a diverse sample of US adults: an exploratory mixed-methods analysis of online survey data.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound social and economic impact across the United States due to the lockdowns and consequent changes to everyday activities in social spaces. METHODS: The COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden (CURB) survey was a nationally representative, online survey of 5,500 American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Latino (English- and Spanish-speaking), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial adults living in the U.S. For this analysis, we used data from the 1,931 participants who responded to the 6-month follow-up survey conducted between 8/16/2021-9/9/2021. As part of the follow-up survey, participants were asked "What was the worst thing about the pandemic that you experienced?" and "Was there anything positive in your life that resulted from the pandemic?" Verbatim responses were coded independently by two coders using open and axial coding techniques to identify salient themes, definitions of themes, and illustrative quotes, with reconciliation across coders. Chi-square tests were used to estimate the association between sociodemographics and salient themes. RESULTS: Commonly reported negative themes among participants reflected disrupted lifestyle/routine (27.4%), not seeing family and friends (9.8%), and negative economic impacts (10.0%). Positive themes included improved relationships (16.9%), improved financial situation (10.1%), and positive employment changes (9.8%). Differences in themes were seen across race-ethnicity, gender, and age; for example, adults ≥ 65 years old, compared to adults 18-64, were more likely to report disrupted routine/lifestyle (37.6% vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001) as a negative aspect of the pandemic, and Spanish-speaking Latino adults were much more likely to report improved relationships compared to other racial-ethnic groups (31.1% vs. 14.8-18.6%, p = 0.03). DISCUSSION: Positive and negative experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic varied widely and differed across race-ethnicity, gender, and age. Future public health interventions should work to mitigate negative social and economic impacts and facilitate posttraumatic growth associated with pandemics.

Evaluating the implementation of Nuevo Amanecer-II in rural community settings using mixed methods and equity frameworks.

BACKGROUND: The 10-week Nuevo Amanecer-II intervention, tested through a randomized controlled trial, reduced anxiety and improved stress management skills among Spanish-speaking Latina breast cancer survivors. This paper describes the implementation and equity evaluation outcomes of the Nuevo Amanecer-II intervention delivered in three California rural communities. METHODS: Using implementation and equity frameworks, concurrent convergent mixed methods were applied to evaluate implementation (feasibility, fidelity, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, and sustainability) and equity (shared power and capacity building) outcomes. Quantitative data were collected using tracking forms, fidelity rating forms, and program evaluation surveys; qualitative data were collected using semi-structured in-depth interviews. Respondents included community-based organization (CBO) administrators, recruiters, compañeras (interventionists), and program participants. RESULTS: Of 76 women randomized to the intervention, 65 (86%) completed at least 7 of 10 sessions. Participants' knowledge (85% correct of 7 questions) and skills mastery were high (85% able to correctly perform 14 skills). Mean fidelity ratings across compañeras ranged from 3.8 (modeled skills) to 5.0 (used supportive/caring communication); 1-5 scale. The program was rated as very good/excellent by 90% of participants. Participants and compañeras suggested including family members; compañeras suggested expanding content on managing thoughts and mood and healthy living and having access to participant's survivorship care plan to tailor breast cancer information. CBOs adopted the program because it aligned with their priority populations and mission. Building on CBOs' knowledge, resources, and infrastructure, implementation success was due to shared power, learning, responsibility, and co-ownership, resulting in a co-created tailored program for community and organizational contexts. Building intervention capacity prior to implementation, providing funding, and ongoing technical support to CBOs were vital for fidelity and enhancement of recruiter and compañera professional skills. Two of three CBOs created plans for program sustainability beyond the clinical trial; all administrators discussed the need for new funding sources to sustain the program as delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Building on community assets and using equitable participatory research processes were central to the successful implementation of a peer-delivered psychosocial intervention in three rural communities among Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer.

Diabetes-associated breast cancer is molecularly distinct and shows a DNA damage repair deficiency.

Diabetes commonly affects patients with cancer. We investigated the influence of diabetes on breast cancer biology using a 3-pronged approach that included analysis of orthotopic human tumor xenografts, patient tumors, and breast cancer cells exposed to diabetes/hyperglycemia-like conditions. We aimed to identify shared phenotypes and molecular signatures by investigating the metabolome, transcriptome, and tumor mutational burden. Diabetes and hyperglycemia did not enhance cell proliferation but induced mesenchymal and stem cell-like phenotypes linked to increased mobility and odds of metastasis. They also promoted oxyradical formation and both a transcriptome and mutational signatures of DNA repair deficiency. Moreover, food- and microbiome-derived metabolites tended to accumulate in breast tumors in the presence of diabetes, potentially affecting tumor biology. Breast cancer cells cultured under hyperglycemia-like conditions acquired increased DNA damage and sensitivity to DNA repair inhibitors. Based on these observations, we conclude that diabetes-associated breast tumors may show an increased drug response to DNA damage repair inhibitors.

Telehealth access, willingness, and barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic among a nationally representative diverse sample of U.S. adults with and without chronic health conditions.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth services represented a critical tool in maintaining continuity and access to care for adults in the USA. However, despite improvements in access and utilization during the pandemic, disparities in telehealth utilization have persisted. It is unclear what role access and willingness to use telehealth play in telehealth disparities. METHODS: We used data from the nationally representative COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden (CURB) survey, an online survey conducted between December 2020 and February 2021, n = 5500. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to estimate the prevalence of perceived telehealth access and willingness to use telehealth services among adults with and without chronic conditions. RESULTS: Overall, 60.1% of adults with and 38.7% of adults without chronic conditions reported having access to telehealth. After adjustment, adults with chronic conditions were more likely to report telehealth access (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21-1.50). Most adults with and without chronic conditions reported being willing to use telehealth services (85.1% and 79.8%, respectively), and no significant differences in willingness were observed across chronic condition status (aPR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.95-1.13). Perceived telehealth access appeared to be a predictor of telehealth willingness in both groups (chronic conditions: aPR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.97-1.54; no chronic conditions: aPR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.22-1.54). The prevalence of perceived barriers to telehealth was low, with the majority reporting no barriers (chronic conditions = 51.4%; no chronic conditions = 61.4%). DISCUSSION: Perceived access to telehealth was associated with telehealth willingness. Investing in approaches that increase telehealth accessibility and awareness is needed to improve access to telehealth for adults with and without chronic conditions.

Inability to get needed health care during the COVID-19 pandemic among a nationally representative, diverse population of U.S. adults with and without chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Delays in health care have been observed in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the prevalence of inability to get needed care and potential disparities in health care access have yet to be assessed. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative, online survey of 5,500 American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Latino (English- and Spanish-speaking), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial adults between 12/2020-2/2021 (baseline) and 8/16/2021-9/9/2021 (6-month follow-up). Participants were asked "Since the start of the pandemic, was there any time when you did not get medical care that you needed?" Those who responded "Yes" were asked about the type of care and the reason for not receiving care. Poisson regression was used to estimate the association between sociodemographics and inability to receive needed care; all analyses were stratified by chronic condition status. Chronic conditions included: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart conditions, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease or on dialysis, sickle cell disease, cancer, and immunocompromised state (weakened immune system). RESULTS: Overall, 20.0% of participants at baseline and 22.7% at follow-up reported not getting needed care. The most common reasons for being unable to get needed care included fear of COVID-19 (baseline: 44.1%; follow-up: 47.2%) and doctors canceled appointment (baseline: 25.3%; follow-up: 14.1%). Routine care (baseline: 59.9%; follow-up: 62.6%) and chronic care management (baseline: 31.5%; follow-up: 30.1%) were the most often reported types of delayed care. Fair/poor self-reported physical health was significantly associated with being unable to get needed care despite chronic condition status (≥ 1 chronic condition: aPR = 1.36, 95%CI = 1.04-1.78); no chronic conditions: aPR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.28-1.80). The likelihood of inability to get needed care differed in some instances by race/ethnicity, age, and insurance status. For example, uninsured adults were more likely to not get needed care (≥ 1 chronic condition: aPR = 1.76, 95%CI = 1.17-2.66); no chronic conditions: aPR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.00-1.56). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, about one fifth of participants reported being unable to receive needed care at baseline and follow-up. Delays in receiving needed medical care may exacerbate existing conditions and perpetuate existing health disparities among vulnerable populations who were more likely to have not received needed health care during the pandemic.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Financial Hardship During the First Year of the Pandemic.

Introduction: The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been substantial, yet little is known about the financial effects resulting from lost employment or financial hardship racial-ethnic disparities. Methods: We conducted a nationally representative, online survey of 5500 English- and Spanish-speaking American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Latino, White, and multiracial adults, from December 2020 to February 2021. Six financial hardship domains were measured (lost income, debt, unmet expenses, unmet health care expenses, housing insecurity, and food insecurity). Prevalence of financial hardship among each racial-ethnic group was estimated using multivariable Poisson regression. Results: Overall, 70.3% reported experiencing financial hardship; debt (57.6%), lost income (44.5%), and unmet expenses (33.7%) were most common. American Indian/Alaska Native (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]=1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.04 to 1.35), Black/African American (aPR=1.18, 95% CI=1.06 to 1.32), Latino (English-speaking: aPR=1.15, 95% CI=1.01 to 1.31; Spanish-speaking: aPR=1.27, 95% CI=1.12 to 1.45), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (aPR=1.21, 95% CI=1.06 to 1.38) adults were more likely to experience financial hardship, compared with White adults. American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, Spanish-speaking Latino, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander adults were also more likely to report hardship in almost all hardship domains (e.g., housing insecurity: aPRs=1.37-1.91). Conclusions: Racial/ethnic minorities were more likely to experience financial hardship during the pandemic. The prevalence of lost income was similar across most racial/ethnic groups, suggesting that preexisting wealth disparities led to some groups being less able to handle the economic shocks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Financial hardship may be underestimated for communities without English or Spanish fluency. Without intervention, financial hardship will likely exacerbate wealth disparities in the United States.

COVID-19 vaccination willingness and uptake among low-income Black/African American, Latino, and White adults living in the U.S.

The purpose of this study was to assess differences in COVID-19 vaccine willingness and uptake between low-income and non-low-income adults and across race-ethnicity. We utilized data from the COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden online survey, which included baseline (12/17/2020-2/11/2021) and 6-month follow-up (8/13/2021-9/9/2021) surveys. The sample included 1,500 Black/African American, Latino, and White low-income adults living in the U.S. (N = 500 each). A non-low-income cohort was created for comparison (n = 1,188). Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess differences in vaccine willingness and uptake between low-income and non-low-income adults, as well as across race-ethnicity (low-income adults only). Only low-income White adults were less likely to be vaccinated compared to their non-low-income counterparts (extremely willing vs. not at all: OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.39-0.86); low-income Black/African American and Latino adults were just as willing or more willing to vaccinate. At follow-up, only 30.2% of low-income adults who reported being unwilling at baseline were vaccinated at follow-up. White low-income adults (63.6%) appeared less likely to be vaccinated, compared to non-low-income White adults (80.9%), low-income Black/African American (70.7%), and low-income Latino adults (72.4%). Distrust in the government (46.6), drug companies (44.5%), and vaccine contents (52.1%) were common among those unwilling to vaccinate. This prospective study among a diverse sample of low-income adults found that low-income White adults were less willing and less likely to vaccinate than their non-low-income counterparts, but this difference was not observed for Black/African American or Latino adults. Distrust and misinformation were prevalent among those who remained unvaccinated at follow-up.

Trends in Mortality From Poisonings, Firearms, and All Other Injuries by Intent in the US, 1999-2020.

Importance: Although deaths due to external causes are a leading cause of mortality in the US, trends over time by intent and demographic characteristics remain poorly understood. Objective: To examine national trends in mortality rates due to external causes from 1999 to 2020 by intent (homicide, suicide, unintentional, and undetermined) and demographic characteristics. External causes were defined as poisonings (eg, drug overdose), firearms, and all other injuries, including motor vehicle injuries and falls. Given the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, US death rates for 2019 and 2020 were also compared. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional study using national death certificate data obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and including all external causes of 3 813 894 deaths among individuals aged 20 years or older from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2020. Data analysis was conducted from January 20, 2022, to February 5, 2023. Exposures: Age, sex, and race and ethnicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trends in age-standardized mortality rates and average annual percentage change (AAPC) in rates calculated by intent (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined), age, sex, and race and ethnicity for each external cause. Results: Between 1999 and 2020, there were 3 813 894 deaths due to external causes in the US. From 1999 to 2020, poisoning death rates increased annually (AAPC, 7.0%; 95% CI, 5.4%-8.7%). From 2014 to 2020, poisoning death rates increased the most among men (APC, 10.8%; 95% CI, 7.7%-14.0%). During the study period, poisoning death rates increased in all the racial and ethnic groups examined; the most rapid increase was among American Indian and Alaska Native individuals (AAPC, 9.2%; 95% CI, 7.4%-10.9%). During the study period, death rates for unintentional poisoning had the most rapid rate of increase (AAPC, 8.1%; 95% CI, 7.4%-8.9%). From 1999 to 2020, firearm death rates increased (AAPC, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.5%). From 2013 to 2020, firearm mortality increased by an average of 4.7% annually (95% CI, 2.9%-6.5%) among individuals aged 20 to 39 years. From 2014 to 2020, mortality from firearm homicides increased by an average of 6.9% annually (95% CI, 3.5%-10.4%). From 2019 to 2020, mortality rates from external causes accelerated further, largely from increases in unintentional poisoning, and homicide due to firearms and all other injuries. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that from 1999 to 2020, death rates due to poisonings, firearms, and all other injuries increased substantially in the US. The rapid increase in deaths due to unintentional poisonings and firearm homicides is a national emergency that requires urgent public health interventions at the local and national levels.

Financial Hardship and Psychological Distress During the Pandemic: A Nationally Representative Survey of Major Racial-Ethnic Groups in the United States.

Introduction: While financial hardship has been consistently linked to psychological distress, little research exists on associations between financial hardship experienced during the pandemic and mental health. Methods: We conducted a nationally representative, online survey of American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Latino (English and Spanish speaking), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, and multiracial adults, 12/2020-2/2021 (n=5500). Six financial hardship domains were measured (lost income, debt, unmet expenses, unmet health care expenses, housing insecurity, and food insecurity). Psychological distress measures included anxiety-depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-4), perceived stress (modified Perceived Stress Scale), and loneliness-isolation ("In the past month, how often have you felt lonely and isolated?"). Associations between financial hardship and psychological distress were estimated using multinomial logistic regression. Results: Overall, 70.3% of participants reported experiencing financial hardship (substantial hardship: 21.3%; some hardship: 27.4%; and a little hardship: 21.6%), with Spanish-speaking Latino (87.3%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (79.2%) adults being most likely. Debt (57.6%), lost income (44.5%), and unmet expenses (33.7%) were the most common. There was a dose-response association between financial hardship and moderate/severe anxiety-depression symptoms (a little hardship: adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.12-1.80; some hardship: aOR=3.21, 95% CI=2.58-3.98; and substantial hardship: aOR=8.15, 95% CI=6.45-10.29). Similar dose-response trends were observed with perceived stress and loneliness-isolation. No racial-ethnic difference in the association between financial hardship during the pandemic and psychological distress was seen. Discussion: Financial hardship has had a major impact on psychological distress during the pandemic; moreover, while no racial-ethnic difference in the effect of financial hardship was observed, because racial-ethnic minorities experienced greater hardship, financial hardship may exacerbate psychological distress disparities.

Financial hardship, sleep disturbances, and their relationship among men and women in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: In the United States (US), the health and financial consequences of COVID-19 have disproportionately impacted women and minoritized racial-ethnic groups. Yet, few US studies have investigated financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic and sleep health disparities. Our objective was to investigate associations between financial hardship and sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic by gender and race and ethnicity in the United States. METHODS: We used the nationally representative COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden cross-sectional survey data collected among 5339 men and women from 12/2020 to 2/2021. Participants reported financial hardship (eg, debt, employment/work loss) since the pandemic began and completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Management Information System Short Form 4a for sleep disturbances. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using adjusted, weighted Poisson regression with robust variance. RESULTS: Most (71%) participants reported financial hardship. Prevalence of moderate to severe sleep disturbances was 20% overall, higher among women (23%), and highest among American Indian/Alaska Native (29%) and multiracial adults (28%). Associations between financial hardship and moderate to severe sleep disturbances (PR = 1.52 [95% confidence interval: 1.18, 1.94]) did not differ by gender but varied by race and ethnicity: associations were strongest among Black/African American (PR = 3.52 [1.99,6.23]) adults. CONCLUSIONS: Both financial hardship and sleep disturbances were prevalent, and their relationships were strongest among certain minoritized racial-ethnic groups, particularly Black/African American adults. Interventions that alleviate financial insecurity may reduce sleep health disparities.

Depression Symptoms, Perceived Stress, and Loneliness During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Diverse US Racial-Ethnic Groups.

Introduction: Studies have reported increases in psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate associations between race-ethnicity and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic among nationally representative samples of all major racial-ethnic groups in the United States. Methods: We conducted a nationally representative cross-sectional survey between December 2020 and February 2021 of Asian, black/African American, Latino (English and Spanish speaking), American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, white, and multiracial adults (n=5500). Distress measures included: anxiety-depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]), stress (modified Perceived Stress Scale), and loneliness-isolation (frequency felt lonely and isolated). Multinomial logistic regression models estimated associations between race-ethnicity and psychological distress, adjusting for demographic and health characteristics. Results: Overall, 23.7% reported moderate/severe anxiety-depression symptoms, 34.3% reported moderate/severe stress, and 21.3% reported feeling lonely-isolated fairly/very often. Compared with white adults and adjusting for covariates, the prevalence of moderate/severe anxiety-depression was significantly lower among Asian (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.34-0.58), black (aOR=0.49, 95% CI=0.38-0.63), English-speaking Latino (aOR=0.62, 95% CI=0.45-0.85), Spanish-speaking Latino (aOR=0.31, 95% CI=0.22-0.44), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (aOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.49-0.90) adults. Similar trends were seen for moderate/severe stress and feeling lonely-isolated fairly/very often. Worse distress profiles of American Indian/Alaska Native and multiracial adults were attenuated after adjustment. Conclusions: Minoritized groups tended to have less distress than white adults. Collective experiences of cumulative disadvantage could engender shared resiliency/normalization among these groups.

Impact of COVID-related Discrimination on Psychological Distress and Sleep Disturbances across Race-Ethnicity.

COVID-related discrimination towards historically marginalized racial-ethnic groups in the United States has been well-documented; however, its impact on psychological distress and sleep (overall and within specific racial-ethnic groups) is largely unknown. We used data from our nationally representative, online survey of 5,500 American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black/African American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Latino, White, and multiracial adults, conducted from 12/2020-2/2021. Participants were asked how often they experienced discriminatory behaviors "because they think you might have COVID-19" (modified Everyday Discrimination Scale). Psychological distress was captured as having experienced anxiety-depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionairre-4, PHQ-4), perceived stress (modified Perceived Stress Scale), or loneliness-isolation ("How often have you felt lonely and isolated?"). Sleep disturbances were measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System Short Form Sleep Disturbance scale (PROMIS-SF 4a). Overall, 22.1% reported COVID-related discriminatory behaviors (sometimes/always: 9.7%; rarely: 12.4%). 48.4% of participants reported anxiety-depression symptoms (moderate/severe: 23.7% mild: 24.8%), 62.4% reported feeling stressed (moderate/severe: 34.3%; mild: 28,1%), 61.0% reported feeling lonely-isolated (fairly often/very often: 21.3%; almost never/sometimes: 39.7%), and 35.4% reported sleep disturbances (moderate/severe:19.8%; mild: 15.6%). Discrimination was only associated with increased psychological distress among racial-ethnic minorities. For example, COVID-related discrimination was strongly associated with anxiety-depression among Black/African American adults (mild: aOR=2.12, 95% CI=1.43-5.17; moderate/severe: aOR=5.19, 95% CI=3.35-8.05), but no association was observed among White or multiracial adults. Mitigating pandemic-related discrimination could help alleviate mental and sleep health disparities occurring among minoritized racial-ethnic groups.

Profiling the Somatic Mutational Landscape of Breast Tumors from Hispanic/Latina Women Reveals Conserved and Unique Characteristics.

Somatic mutational profiling is increasingly being used to identify potential targets for breast cancer. However, limited tumor-sequencing data from Hispanic/Latinas (H/L) are available to guide treatment. To address this gap, we performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing on 146 tumors and WES of matched germline DNA from 140 H/L women in California. Tumor intrinsic subtype, somatic mutations, copy-number alterations, and expression profiles of the tumors were characterized and compared with data from tumors of non-Hispanic White (White) women in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Eight genes were significantly mutated in the H/L tumors including PIK3CA, TP53, GATA3, MAP3K1, CDH1, CBFB, PTEN, and RUNX1; the prevalence of mutations in these genes was similar to that observed in White women in TCGA. Four previously reported Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) mutation signatures (1, 2, 3, 13) were found in the H/L dataset, along with signature 16 that has not been previously reported in other breast cancer datasets. Recurrent amplifications were observed in breast cancer drivers including MYC, FGFR1, CCND1, and ERBB2, as well as a recurrent amplification in 17q11.2 associated with high KIAA0100 gene expression that has been implicated in breast cancer aggressiveness. In conclusion, this study identified a higher prevalence of COSMIC signature 16 and a recurrent copy-number amplification affecting expression of KIAA0100 in breast tumors from H/L compared with White women. These results highlight the necessity of studying underrepresented populations. SIGNIFICANCE: Comprehensive characterization of genomic and transcriptomic alterations in breast tumors from Hispanic/Latina patients reveals distinct genetic alterations and signatures, demonstrating the importance of inclusive studies to ensure equitable care for patients. See related commentary by Schmit et al., p. 2443.

Disparities in telehealth access, not willingness to use services, likely explain rural telehealth disparities.

PURPOSE: Although telehealth access and utilization have increased during the pandemic, rural and low-income disparities persist. We sought to assess whether access or willingness to use telehealth differed between rural and non-rural and low-income and non-low-income adults and measure the prevalence of perceived barriers. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden (CURB) online survey (December 17, 2020-February 17, 2021), which included 2 nationally representative cohorts of rural and low-income Black/African American, Latino, and White adults. Non-rural and non-low-income participants from the main, nationally representative sample were matched for rural versus non-rural and low-income versus non-low-income comparisons. We measured perceived telehealth access, willingness to use telehealth, and perceived telehealth barriers. FINDINGS: Rural (38.6% vs 44.9%) and low-income adults (42.0% vs 47.4%) were less likely to report telehealth access, compared to non-rural and non-low-income counterparts. After adjustment, rural adults were still less likely to report telehealth access (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79-0.99); no differences were seen between low-income and non-low-income adults (aPR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.88-1.17). The majority of adults reported willingness to use telehealth (rural = 78.4%; low-income = 79.0%), with no differences between rural and non-rural (aPR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.92-1.08) or low-income versus non-low-income (aPR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.91-1.13). No racial/ethnic differences were observed in willingness to use telehealth. The prevalence of perceived telehealth barriers was low, with the majority reporting no barriers (rural = 57.4%; low-income = 56.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of access (and awareness of access) is likely a primary driver of disparities in rural telehealth use. Race/ethnicity was not associated with telehealth willingness, suggesting that equal utilization is possible once granted access.

Cancer mortality rates by racial and ethnic groups in the United States, 2018-2020.

BACKGROUND: Starting in 2018, national death certificates included a new racial classification system that accounts for multiple-race decedents and separates Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) individuals from Asian individuals. We estimated cancer death rates across updated racial and ethnic categories, sex, and age. METHODS: Age-standardized US cancer mortality rates and rate ratios from 2018 to 2020 among individuals aged 20 years and older were estimated with national death certificate data by race and ethnicity, sex, age, and cancer site. RESULTS: In 2018, there were approximately 597 000 cancer deaths, 598 000 in 2019, and 601 000 in 2020. Among men, cancer death rates were highest in Black men (298.2 per 100 000; n = 105 632), followed by White (250.8; n = 736 319), American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; 249.2; n = 3376), NHPI (205.6; n = 1080), Latino (177.2; n = 66 167), and Asian (147.9; n = 26 591) men. Among women, Black women had the highest cancer death rates (206.5 per 100 000; n = 104 437), followed by NHPI (192.1; n = 1141), AI/AN (189.9; n = 3239), White (183.0; n = 646 865), Latina (128.4; n = 61 579), and Asian (111.4; n = 26 396) women. The highest death rates by age group occurred among NHPI individuals aged 20-49 years and Black individuals aged 50-69 and 70 years and older. Asian individuals had the lowest cancer death rates across age groups. Compared with Asian individuals, total cancer death rates were 39% higher in NHPI men and 73% higher in NHPI women. CONCLUSIONS: There were striking racial and ethnic disparities in cancer death rates during 2018-2020. Separating NHPI and Asian individuals revealed large differences in cancer mortality between 2 groups that were previously combined in vital statistics data.

Economic and Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos.

Objectives: To examine the prevalence and correlates of economic hardship and psychosocial distress experienced during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in a large cohort of Hispanic/Latino adults. Methods: The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL), an ongoing multicenter study of Hispanic/Latino adults, collected information about COVID-19 illness and psychosocial and economic distress that occurred during the pandemic (N=11,283). We estimated the prevalence of these experiences during the initial phase of the pandemic (May 2020 to May 2021) and examined the prepandemic factors associated with pandemic-related economic hardship and emotional distress using multivariable log linear models with binomial distributions to estimate prevalence ratios. Results: Almost half of the households reported job losses and a third reported economic hardship during the first year of the pandemic. Pandemic-related household job losses and economic hardship were more pronounced among noncitizens who are likely to be undocumented. Pandemic-related economic hardship and psychosocial distress varied by age group and sex. Contrary to the economic hardship findings, noncitizens were less likely to report pandemic-related psychosocial distress. Prepandemic social resources were inversely related to psychosocial distress. Conclusions: The study findings underscore the economic vulnerability that the pandemic has brought to ethnic minoritized and immigrant populations in the United States, in particular noncitizens. The study also highlights the need to incorporate documentation status as a social determinant of health. Characterizing the initial economic and mental health impact of the pandemic is important for understanding the pandemic consequences on future health. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02060344.

COVID-19 vaccination willingness and uptake among rural Black/African American, Latino, and White adults.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess differences in COVID-19 vaccine willingness and uptake between rural and nonrural adults, and within rural racial-ethnic groups. METHODS: We utilized data from the COVID-19's Unequal Racial Burden online survey, which included 1,500 Black/African American, Latino, and White rural adults (n = 500 each). Baseline (12/2020-2/2021) and 6-month follow-up (8/2021-9/2021) surveys were administered. A cohort of nonrural Black/African American, Latino, and White adults (n = 2,277) was created to compare differences between rural and nonrural communities. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess associations between rurality, race-ethnicity, and vaccine willingness and uptake. FINDINGS: At baseline, only 24.9% of rural adults were extremely willing to be vaccinated and 28.4% were not at all willing. Rural White adults were least willing to be vaccinated, compared to nonrural White adults (extremely willing: aOR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.30-0.64). At follow-up, 69.3% of rural adults were vaccinated; however, only 25.3% of rural adults who reported being unwilling to vaccinate were vaccinated at follow-up, compared to 95.6% of adults who were extremely willing to be vaccinated and 76.3% who were unsure. Among those unwilling to vaccinate at follow-up, almost half reported distrust in the government (52.3%) and drug companies (46.2%); 80% reported that nothing would change their minds regarding vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: By August 2021, almost 70% of rural adults were vaccinated. However, distrust and misinformation were prevalent among those unwilling to vaccinate at follow-up. To continue to effectively combat COVID-19 in rural communities, we need to address misinformation to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates.

"Long Overdue": Nurse and Resident Physician Perspectives on Implementation of Dual-Handset Interpreter Phones in the Inpatient Setting.

Background: Patients with language barriers suffer significant health disparities, including adverse events and poor health outcomes. While remote language services can help improve language access, these modalities remain persistently underused. The objective of this study was to understand clinician experiences and challenges using dual-handset interpreter telephones and to inform recommendations for future language access interventions. Methods: We conducted four focus groups with nurses (N=14) and resident physicians (N=20) to understand attitudes toward dual-handset interpreter telephones in the hospital, including general impressions, effects on communication, situations in which they did and did not use them, and impact on clinical care. Three researchers independently coded all transcripts using a constant comparative approach, meeting repeatedly to discuss coding and to reconcile differences to reach consensus. Results: We identified five salient themes, including increased language access (improved convenience, flexibility, and versatility of phones over in-person or ad hoc interpreters); effects on interpersonal processes of care (improved ability to communicate directly with patients); effects on clinical processes of care (improvements in critical patient care functions, including pain and medication management); impact on time (needing extra time for interpreted encounters and perceived delays impacting future use); and patients for whom, and circumstances in which, the dual-handset interpreter telephone is inadequate (e.g., complex discussions, hands-on instruction, or multiple speakers are present). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that clinicians value dual-handset interpretation in bridging communication barriers and highlight recommendations to guide future implementation interventions to increase the uptake of remote language services in hospital settings.