Understanding and promoting racial diversity in healthcare settings to address disparities in pandemic crisis management

Background: Health disparities have become apparent since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. When observing racial discrimination in healthcare, self-reported incidences, and perceptions among minority groups in the United States suggest that, the most socioeconomically underrepresented groups will suffer disproportionately in COVID-19 due to synergistic mechanisms. This study reports racially-stratified data regarding the experiences and impacts of different groups availing the healthcare system to identify disparities in outcomes of minority and majority groups in the United States.Methods: Studies were identified utilizing PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO search engines without date and language restrictions. The following keywords were used: Healthcare, raci*, ethnic*, discriminant, hosti*, harass*, insur*, education, income, psychiat*, COVID-19, incidence, mortality, mechanical ventilation. Statistical analysis was conducted in Review Manager (RevMan V.5.4). Unadjusted Odds Ratios, P-values, and 95% confidence intervals were presented.Results: Discrimination in the United States is evident among racial groups regarding medical care portraying mental risk behaviors as having serious outcomes in the health of minority groups. The perceived health inequity had a low association to the majority group as compared to the minority group (OR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.78; P = .007), and the association of mental health problems to the Caucasian-American majority group was low (OR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.58; P \u3c .001).Conclusion: As the pandemic continues into its next stage, efforts should be taken to address the gaps in clinical training and education, and medical practice to avoid the recurring patterns of racial health disparities that become especially prominent in community health emergencies. A standardized tool to assess racial discrimination and inequity will potentially improve pandemic healthcare delivery

Cardio-pulmonary sequelae in recovered COVID-19 patients: Considerations for primary care

Background: Current literature lacks characterization of the post-recovery sequelae among COVID-19 patients. This review characterizes the course of clinical, laboratory, radiological findings during the primary infection period, and the complications post-recovery. Primary care findings are presented for long-COVID care.Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, 4 databases were searched (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Scopus) through December 5, 2020, using the keywords COVID-19 and/or recovered and/or cardiovascular and/or long-term and/or sequelae and/or sub-acute and/or complication. We included published peer-reviewed case reports, case series, and cross-sectional studies providing the clinical course of COVID-19 infection, and cardiopulmonary complications of patients who recovered from COVID-19, while making healthcare considerations for primary care workers.Results: We identified 29 studies across 9 countries including 37.9% Chinese and 24.1% U.S. studies, comprising 655 patients (Mean Age = 45) with various ethnical backgrounds including Asian and European. Based on the WHO COVID-19 severity classification scale, initial disease severity was mild for 377 patients and severe for 52 patients. Treatments during primary infection included corticosteroids, oxygen support, and antivirals. The mean value (in days) for complication onset after acute recovery was 28 days. Complete blood counts and RT-PCR tests were the most common laboratory results described. In 22 of the studies, patients showed signs of clinical improvement and were prescribed medications such as anticoagulants or corticosteroids.Conclusion: Post-recovery infectious complications are common in long-COVID-19 patients ranging from mild infections to life-threatening conditions. International thoracic and cardiovascular societies need to develop guidelines for patients recovering from COVID-19 pneumonia, while focused patient care by the primary care physician is crucial to curb preventable adverse events. Recommendations for real-time and lab-quality diagnostic tests are warranted to establish point-of-care testing, detect early complications, and provide timely treatment

Physician\u27s attitudes on pulmonary rehabilitation following COVID-19: A brief perspective from a developing country

Despite the uncertainty about the follow up of COVID-19 survivors, there is a growing body of evidence supporting specific interventions including pulmonary rehabilitation, which may lead to a reduced hospital stay and improved overall respiratory function. The aim of this short report was to assess the attitudes toward pulmonary rehabilitation following COVID-19 among Ecuadorian physicians. A cross-sectional study was conducted, in which a 5-question survey was used to assess the level of agreement to specific statements with a 5-point Likert scale. Out of the 282 participants, 48.2% (n=136) were male, with a mean of 12.6 (SD=11.3) years of experience. More than half of physicians (63.8%, n=180; χ2(2) = 139.224, p=0.000) considered that diagnosis and treatment of patients with sub-acute and chronic COVID-19 pulmonary sequelae is not clear. Additionally, 94.3% (n=266; χ2(2) = 497.331, p=0.000) agreed that pulmonary rehabilitation must be considered as a relevant strategy in long-term care following an acute infection, with 92.6% (n=261; χ2(2) = 449.772, p=0.000) stating it will improve the likelihood of survival and return to baseline health. In conclusion, we found that considerable majority of physicians held positive attitudes to the role of pulmonary rehabilitation and considered it as a relevant strategy in long-term care following COVID-19. However, most of them also conveyed that the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pulmonary sequalae is unclear, and that guidelines for assessing pulmonary function should be establishe

Challenging the "old boys club" in academia: Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of journals publishing in environmental sciences and public health

In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal’s publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals’ names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45–55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45–55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors’ institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.Gates Cambridge ScholarshipBill and Melinda Gates Foundatio

Knowledge and perceptions regarding pulmonary rehabilitation amongst Ecuadorian physicians following COVID-19 outbreak

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation is already an established technique for patients with chronic respiratory disease, aimed at improving breathlessness, exercise capacity, health status, and well-being. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and perceptions about pulmonary rehabilitation post-COVID-19 infection among Ecuadorian physicians.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey-based study using a 27-item questionnaire to assess the knowledge about specific topics related to pulmonary rehabilitation. The sample comprised Ecuadorian physicians who were currently enrolled to an active medical practice that included care to COVID-19 patients. Descriptive statistics were applied for demographic variables of interest. A chi-square goodness of fit test was used to determine whether the observed frequencies of each of the answers per query were within or outside of the expected frequencies by chance.Results: In total, 295 participants answered the survey, out of which 57.3% were general practitioners. Most agreed that COVID-19 infected patients must be followed-up with some measurement of respiratory function (81.4%, p=0.000), but only 18.3% (n=54, p=0.000) were aware of specific guidelines related to rehabilitation. 93.6% (n=276, p=0.000) considered that pulmonary rehabilitation provides a benefit, of any kind, to patients with past COVID-19 infection.Conclusions: Most physicians considered pulmonary rehabilitation beneficial following COVID-19. However, there is uncertainty on how to adequately follow up patients, complementary tests, and specific guidelines outlining rehabilitative intervention

Challenging the "old boys club" in academia: Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of journals publishing in environmental sciences and public health.

In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal's publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals' names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45-55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45-55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors' institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation