Democracy deposed : U.S. media coverage of 1950's Guatemala

After World War II, the United States established itself as a crusader for democracy and capitalism around the world. The urge to fight communism while advocating for democracy meant a dilemma when faced with countries with democratically elected leftist governments. By no means does leftism mean communism, however, during the Cold War, the United States feared that left of center governments could fall to communism with the Soviet Union's influence. Ultimately, the United States was more intent on stopping the spread of communism than supporting true democracies, so it supported military coups against democratically elected leftist governments to put right-wing regimes in their place. The fact that the CIA backed these coups is no longer a secret, and the CIA has even admitted to involvement in some of them. Despite these operations being clandestine at the time, that did not stop the media from subjectively reporting in opposition to these leftist governments, especially Guatemala's. Newspapers in the United States reported with clear bias against the leftist democratically elected government in Guatemala before, during, and after the CIA military coup.undergraduat

Randomized controlled trial of Nuevo Amanecer: A peer-delivered stress management intervention for Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Latinas with breast cancer suffer symptom and psychosocial health disparities. Effective interventions have not been developed for or tested in this population. PURPOSE: We describe community-based participatory research methods used to develop and implement the Nuevo Amanecer program, a culturally tailored, peer-delivered cognitive-behavioral stress management intervention for low-income Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer, and unique considerations in implementing a randomized controlled trial to test the program in community settings. METHODS: We applied an implementation science framework to delineate the methodological phases used to develop and implement the Nuevo Amanecer program and trial, emphasizing community engagement processes. RESULTS: In phase 1, we established project infrastructure: academic and community Co-Principal Investigators, community partners, community advisory board, steering committee, and funding. In phase 2, we identified three program inputs: formative research, a community best practices model, and an evidence-based intervention tested in non-Latinas. In phase 3, we created the new program by integrating and adapting intervention components from the three sources, making adaptations to accommodate low-literacy, Spanish language, cultural factors, community context, and population needs. In phase 4, we built community capacity for the program and trial by training field staff (recruiters and interventionists embedded in community sites), compensating field staff, and creating a system for identifying potential participants. In phase 5, we implemented and monitored the program and trial. Engaging community partners in all phases has resulted in a new, culturally tailored program that is suitable for newly diagnosed Latinas with breast cancer and a trial that is acceptable and supported by community and clinical partners. LESSONS LEARNED: Engagement of community-based organizations and cancer survivors as research partners and hiring recruiters and interventionists from the community were critical to successful implementation in community settings. Having culturally and linguistically competent research staff with excellent interpersonal skills facilitated implementation. Facilitating and maintaining excellent communication among community partners was imperative to troubleshoot implementation issues. Randomization was challenging due to community concerns about assigning women to a control group. Patient privacy regulations and the need for extensive outreach to establish relationships between community partners and clinical sites hampered initial recruitment. LIMITATIONS: These were resource-intensive processes to develop and implement the program that need to be compared to less intensive alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging community members in design and implementation of community-based programs and trials enhances cultural appropriateness and congruence with the community context. If the randomized trial demonstrates that the intervention is effective, it will fill a gap in evidence-based programs to address ethnic disparities in quality of life among Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer

Countering the Illiberal Drift in Europe: Mobilizing Civil Society and Governments to Defend Liberal Democracy

In this Task Force, we identify the main drivers of this illiberal drift. We highlight the political strategies that illiberal forces employ to undermine liberal democracy, and offer policy solutions on how to counter these strategies. Our policy report addresses three thematic areas: first, the Politics of Exclusion: covering the cultural arguments that illiberal actors have built around race, migration, gender, and “collective victimhood.” Second, we investigate the Politics of Sovereignty: the backlash against European integration and globalization that have strained Europe’s liberal consensus. Finally, we examine the Politics of Democratic Institutions, interrogating how illiberal parties and states have mobilized against civil society, traditional media, independent political and judicial institutions, and the rule of law

Randomized Controlled Trial of Nuevo Amanecer: A Peer-delivered Stress Management Intervention for Spanish-speaking Latinas with Breast Cancer

BackgroundLatinas with breast cancer suffer symptom and psychosocial health disparities. Effective interventions have not been developed for or tested in this population.PurposeWe describe community-based participatory research methods used to develop and implement the Nuevo Amanecer program, a culturally tailored, peer-delivered cognitive-behavioral stress management intervention for low-income Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer, and unique considerations in implementing a randomized controlled trial to test the program in community settings.MethodsWe applied an implementation science framework to delineate the methodological phases used to develop and implement the Nuevo Amanecer program and trial, emphasizing community engagement processes.ResultsIn phase 1, we established project infrastructure: academic and community Co-Principal Investigators, community partners, community advisory board, steering committee, and funding. In phase 2, we identified three program inputs: formative research, a community best practices model, and an evidence-based intervention tested in non-Latinas. In phase 3, we created the new program by integrating and adapting intervention components from the three sources, making adaptations to accommodate low-literacy, Spanish language, cultural factors, community context, and population needs. In phase 4, we built community capacity for the program and trial by training field staff (recruiters and interventionists embedded in community sites), compensating field staff, and creating a system for identifying potential participants. In phase 5, we implemented and monitored the program and trial. Engaging community partners in all phases has resulted in a new, culturally tailored program that is suitable for newly diagnosed Latinas with breast cancer and a trial that is acceptable and supported by community and clinical partners.Lessons LearnedEngagement of community-based organizations and cancer survivors as research partners and hiring recruiters and interventionists from the community were critical to successful implementation in community settings. Having culturally and linguistically competent research staff with excellent interpersonal skills facilitated implementation. Facilitating and maintaining excellent communication among community partners was imperative to troubleshoot implementation issues. Randomization was challenging due to community concerns about assigning women to a control group. Patient privacy regulations and the need for extensive outreach to establish relationships between community partners and clinical sites hampered initial recruitment.LimitationsThese were resource-intensive processes to develop and implement the program that need to be compared to less intensive alternatives.ConclusionsEngaging community members in design and implementation of community-based programs and trials enhances cultural appropriateness and congruence with the community context. If the randomized trial demonstrates that the intervention is effective, it will fill a gap in evidence-based programs to address ethnic disparities in quality of life among Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer

Randomized Controlled Trial of Nuevo Amanecer: A Peer-delivered Stress Management Intervention for Spanish-speaking Latinas with Breast Cancer

BackgroundLatinas with breast cancer suffer symptom and psychosocial health disparities. Effective interventions have not been developed for or tested in this population.PurposeWe describe community-based participatory research methods used to develop and implement the Nuevo Amanecer program, a culturally tailored, peer-delivered cognitive-behavioral stress management intervention for low-income Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer, and unique considerations in implementing a randomized controlled trial to test the program in community settings.MethodsWe applied an implementation science framework to delineate the methodological phases used to develop and implement the Nuevo Amanecer program and trial, emphasizing community engagement processes.ResultsIn phase 1, we established project infrastructure: academic and community Co-Principal Investigators, community partners, community advisory board, steering committee, and funding. In phase 2, we identified three program inputs: formative research, a community best practices model, and an evidence-based intervention tested in non-Latinas. In phase 3, we created the new program by integrating and adapting intervention components from the three sources, making adaptations to accommodate low-literacy, Spanish language, cultural factors, community context, and population needs. In phase 4, we built community capacity for the program and trial by training field staff (recruiters and interventionists embedded in community sites), compensating field staff, and creating a system for identifying potential participants. In phase 5, we implemented and monitored the program and trial. Engaging community partners in all phases has resulted in a new, culturally tailored program that is suitable for newly diagnosed Latinas with breast cancer and a trial that is acceptable and supported by community and clinical partners.Lessons LearnedEngagement of community-based organizations and cancer survivors as research partners and hiring recruiters and interventionists from the community were critical to successful implementation in community settings. Having culturally and linguistically competent research staff with excellent interpersonal skills facilitated implementation. Facilitating and maintaining excellent communication among community partners was imperative to troubleshoot implementation issues. Randomization was challenging due to community concerns about assigning women to a control group. Patient privacy regulations and the need for extensive outreach to establish relationships between community partners and clinical sites hampered initial recruitment.LimitationsThese were resource-intensive processes to develop and implement the program that need to be compared to less intensive alternatives.ConclusionsEngaging community members in design and implementation of community-based programs and trials enhances cultural appropriateness and congruence with the community context. If the randomized trial demonstrates that the intervention is effective, it will fill a gap in evidence-based programs to address ethnic disparities in quality of life among Spanish-speaking Latinas with breast cancer

Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions

Despite growing interest in understanding how social factors drive poor health outcomes, many academics, policy makers, scientists, elected officials, journalists, and others responsible for defining and responding to the public discourse remain reluctant to identify racism as a root cause of racial health inequities. In this conceptual report, the third in a Series on equity and equality in health in the USA, we use a contemporary and historical perspective to discuss research and interventions that grapple with the implications of what is known as structural racism on population health and health inequities. Structural racism refers to the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice. These patterns and practices in turn reinforce discriminatory beliefs, values, and distribution of resources. We argue that a focus on structural racism offers a concrete, feasible, and promising approach towards advancing health equity and improving population health