Setting and Success in Resistance Campaigns

Recent literature has argued that nonviolent political resistance campaigns are more effective at achieving their political goals than violent resistance campaigns. This paper examines the structural relationship between campaign goals, campaign setting (urban or rural), campaign type (violent or nonviolent), and campaign success. I argue that because nonviolent and violent campaigns often have different goals, nonviolent movements tend to form in urban areas critical to the regime, while violent movements tend to arise in non-threatening rural hinterlands. I support this theory with quantitative evidence by linking observations from two event-level datasets on conflict to a dataset on maximalist resistance campaigns. I find that correlations between nonviolence and success may instead be due to a relationship between campaign setting and success. I compliment the quantitative analysis with case studies of Iranian resistance campaigns since 1890. The results challenge the notion that nonviolent resistance can be a strategic substitute for violent resistance

Community-Based Services to Improve Testing and Linkage to Care Among Non-U.S.-Born Persons with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection - Three U.S. Programs, October 2014-September 2017.

Among an estimated 850,000 to 2.2 million persons with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in the United States, 70% are non-U.S.-born (1,2). All patients require linkage to care, and approximately 20%-40% require antiviral treatment (3). Without treatment, one in four persons chronically infected with HBV will die prematurely from liver failure, liver cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma (4). To mitigate morbidity and mortality, CDC funded a cooperative agreement to develop hepatitis B testing and linkage-to-care programs serving non-U.S.-born persons during October 2014-September 2017. This report describes each program's operational services and partnerships with primary care centers, community-based organizations, and public health departments to recruit non-U.S.-born persons for HBV testing using the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and link those whose test results were positive to HBV-directed care (medical visit attendance with monitoring of HBV DNA and liver enzyme tests). Among 10,152 program participants, 757 (7.5%) were HBsAg-positive, indicative of chronic HBV infection; among these, 643 (85%) attended ≥1 medical visit, 587 (78%) received HBV-directed care, and 137 (18%) were prescribed antiviral treatment. Among 273 household contacts of HBsAg-positive persons, 39 (14%) had positive test results for HBsAg. Prevalence of current HBV infection was high in this non-U.S.-born population and among household and sexual contacts of HBV-infected persons. HBV testing and linkage to care can be achieved through partnerships with community organizations, health centers, and public health departments

Intimate Partner Abuse among Gay and Bisexual Men: Risk Correlates and Health Outcomes

Little is known about the patterns and types of intimate partner abuse in same-sex male couples, and few studies have examined the psychosocial characteristics and health problems of gay and bisexual men who experience such abuse. Using a cross-sectional survey sample of 817 men who have sex with men (MSM) in the Chicago area, this study tested the effect of psychological and demographic factors generally associated with intimate partner abuse and examined their relationship to various health problems. Overall, 32.4% (n = 265) of participants reported any form of relationship abuse in a past or current relationship; 20.6% (n = 168) reported a history of verbal abuse (“threatened physically or sexually, publicly humiliated, or controlled”), 19.2% (n = 157) reported physical violence (“hit, kicked, shoved, burned, cut, or otherwise physically hurt”), and 18.5% (n = 151) reported unwanted sexual activity. Fifty-four percent (n = 144) of men reporting any history of abuse reported more than one form. Age and ethnic group were unrelated to reports of abuse. Depression and substance abuse were among the strongest correlates of intimate partner abuse. Men reporting recent unprotected anal sex were more likely to also report abuse, Wald (1, n = 773) = 9.02, p < .05, Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.61, Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.18–2.21. We discuss psychosocial issues faced by gay and bisexual men who experience intimate partner abuse as they may pertain to interventions among this group

Problems with Evidence Assessment in COVID-19 Health Policy Impact Evaluation (PEACHPIE): A systematic review of evidence strength

Introduction: The impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes is one of the most important questions of our time. Unfortunately, there are substantial concerns about the strength and quality of the literature examining policy impacts. This study systematically assessed the currently published COVID-19 policy impact literature for a checklist of study design elements and methodological issues. Methods: We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on November 26 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers independently and in consensus. The review tool was based on review guidance for assessing COVID-19 health policy impact evaluation analyses, including first identifying the assumptions behind the methods used, followed by assessing graphical display of outcomes data, functional form for the outcomes, timing between policy and impact, concurrent changes to the outcomes, and an overall rating. Results: After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. The majority (n=23/36) of studies in our sample examined the impact of stay-at-home requirements. Nine studies were set aside due to inappropriate study design (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-section), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 1/27 studies passed all of the above checks, and 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, we found that only four (or by a stricter standard, only one) of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. Discussion: The current literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely fails to meet key design criteria for useful inference. This may be partially due to the circumstances for evaluation being particularly difficult, as well as a context with desire for rapid publication, the importance of the topic, and weak peer review processes. Importantly, weak evidence is non-informative and does not indicate how effective these policies were on COVID-19 outcomes

Problems with evidence assessment in COVID-19 health policy impact evaluation: a systematic review of study design and evidence strength

INTRODUCTION: Assessing the impact of COVID-19 policy is critical for informing future policies. However, there are concerns about the overall strength of COVID-19 impact evaluation studies given the circumstances for evaluation and concerns about the publication environment. METHODS: We included studies that were primarily designed to estimate the quantitative impact of one or more implemented COVID-19 policies on direct SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 outcomes. After searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published on 26 November 2020 or earlier and screening, all studies were reviewed by three reviewers first independently and then to consensus. The review tool was based on previously developed and released review guidance for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation. RESULTS: After 102 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, we identified 36 published articles that evaluated the quantitative impact of COVID-19 policies on direct COVID-19 outcomes. Nine studies were set aside because the study design was considered inappropriate for COVID-19 policy impact evaluation (n=8 pre/post; n=1 cross-sectional), and 27 articles were given a full consensus assessment. 20/27 met criteria for graphical display of data, 5/27 for functional form, 19/27 for timing between policy implementation and impact, and only 3/27 for concurrent changes to the outcomes. Only 4/27 were rated as overall appropriate. Including the 9 studies set aside, reviewers found that only four of the 36 identified published and peer-reviewed health policy impact evaluation studies passed a set of key design checks for identifying the causal impact of policies on COVID-19 outcomes. DISCUSSION: The reviewed literature directly evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies largely failed to meet key design criteria for inference of sufficient rigour to be actionable by policy-makers. More reliable evidence review is needed to both identify and produce policy-actionable evidence, alongside the recognition that actionable evidence is often unlikely to be feasible