The changing economic structure of the maritime industry and its adverse effects on seafarers’ health care rights

Background: This review seeks to understand whether and how seafarers can exercise their human right to health care and the factors that facilitate or impede that exercise. The general focus is on a critical policy analysis of labour policies from the mid-twentieth century through today, with a specific focus on how Filipino seafarers access their health care rights. Materials and methods: The methodology includes a critical policy analysis of seafaring, focusing on mid-twentieth century political shifts in the recognition and regulation of health care rights. The analysis of international and United States policy provides the backbone for understanding the health care experiences of seafarers by laying the ideological, theoretical, and political foundations of labour rights and precarious employment. Results: Policy analysis shows that there are numerous laws, regulations, and human rights norms that have been established to protect seafarers, but uncertain and limited recourse to lay claim to such laws, regulations, and norms while at sea. Lack of recourse to policies and regulations, taken together with the changed conditions of labour and worker protections through technology and neoliberal policies, create the conditions that may increase the health inequity among seafarers’. Conclusions: Health policy discussions in the United States and internationally must not solely focus on the health of seafarers as an interruption to travel and trade, but policy makers should consider that their decisions may contribute to how seafarers can exercise their rights to health care. In this context, health is more than disease and access to care — economic and governance structures come to not only matter, but play an integral role in the facilitation or impediment of health care and to the health arrangements/conditions of workers.

You Learn How to Hate\u27: adapting a Healthy Relationship Curriculum Using a Trauma-informed Race Equity Lens

Teen dating violence is a public health concern that can lead to short- and long-term mental and physical health consequences, including depression, anxiety, risky behaviors, and unhealthy future relationships. Research shows that social and structural determinants of health, such as racism, low socio-economic status, and neighborhood conditions, may predispose certain communities to violence. to better understand methods to reduce TDV among ethnically and economically diverse populations, we used a trauma-informed race equity lens to adapt an efficacious prevention program known a

The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic On adolescent Mental Health and Substance Use

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine whether COVID-19-induced financial impact, stress, loneliness, and isolation were related to perceived changes in adolescent mental health and substance use. METHODS: Data were from Baseline (2018) and Wave 3 (2020; mean age = 14.8; 50% female) of 1,188 adolescents recruited from 12 Texas public middle schools as part of a randomized controlled trial. Participants were primarily Black (23%), Latinx (41%), Asian (11%), and White (9%). We assessed mental health and substance use (Baseline and Wave 3) and pandemic-related physical interaction, loneliness, stress, family conflict, and economic situation (Wave 3). RESULTS: COVID-19-induced stress and loneliness were linked to depression (beta = 0.074, p ≤ .001; beta = 0.132, p ≤ .001) and anxiety (beta = 0.061, p = .001; beta = 0.088, p ≤ .001) among ethnically diverse adolescents. Adolescents who did not limit their physical interactions due to COVID-19 had fewer symptoms of depression (beta = -0.036, p = .03); additionally, adolescents who did not restrict their socializing were substantially more likely to report using a variety of substances (e.g., for episodic heavy drinking; odds ratio = 1.81, p = .001). Increased use of a food bank was linked to depression (beta = 0.063, p ≤ .001) and a negative change in financial situation was linked to increased alcohol use (odds ratio = 0.70, p = .04) among adolescents. DISCUSSION: After controlling for prepandemic psychopathology and race/ethnicity, COVID-19 induced isolation, loneliness, stress, and economic challenges were linked to poor mental health and substance misuse. Substantial structural, community, school, and individual level resources are needed to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescent psychosocial health

On the Front Lines of the Covid-19 Pandemic: Occupational Experiences of the intimate Partner Violence and Sexual assault Workforce

In the face of increasing risk for intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to understand the experiences of the workforce providing support to survivors, as well as the evolving service delivery methods, shifting safety planning approaches, and occupational stress of frontline workers. We addressed this gap by conducting an online survey of members of IPV and sexual assault workforce using a broad, web-based recruitment strategy. In total, 352 staff from 24 states participated. We collaborated with practitioner networks and anti-violence coalitions to develop the brief survey, which included questions about work and health, safety planning, and stress. We used chi-square

Are research-policy engagement activities informed by policy theory and evidence? 7 challenges to the UK impact agenda

“Impact” describes how research informs policy and societal change, and “impact agenda” describes strategies to increase engagement between research and policymaking. Both are notoriously difficult to conceptualize and measure. However, funders must find ways to define and identify the success of different research-policy initiatives. We seek to answer, but also widen, their implicit question: in what should we invest if we seek to maximize the impact of research? We map the activities of 346 organizations investing in research-policy engagement. We categorize their activities as belonging to three “generations” fostering linear, relational, and systems approaches to evidence use. Some seem successful, but the available evidence is not clear and organizations often do not provide explicit aims to compare with outcomes. As such, it is difficult to know where funders and researches should invest their energy. We relate these findings to studies of policy analysis, policy process research, and critical social science to identify seven key challenges for the “impact agenda”. They include: clarify the purpose of engagement, who it is for, if it is achievable in complex policymaking systems, and how far researchers should go to seek it. These challenges should help inform future studies of evidence use, as well as future strategies to improve the impact of research

From the National to the Local: Issues of Trust and a Model For Community-Academic-Engagement

Inequities in health and health care in the United States have persisted for decades, and the impacts on equity from the COVID-19 pandemic were no exception. In addition to the disproportionate burden of the disease across various populations, the pandemic posed several challenges, which exacerbated these existing inequities. This has undoubtedly contributed to deeply rooted public mistrust in medical research and healthcare delivery, particularly among historically and structurally oppressed populations. In the summer of 2020, given the series of social injustices posed by the pandemic and highly publicized incidents of police brutality, notably the murder of George Floyd, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) enlisted the help of a national collaborative, the AAMC Collaborative for Health Equity: Act, Research, Generate Evidence (CHARGE) to establish a three-way partnership that would gather and prioritize community perspectives and lived experiences from multiple regions across the US on the role of academic medicals centers (AMCs) in advancing health and social justice. Given physical gathering constraints posed by the pandemic, virtual interviews were conducted with 30 racially and ethnically diverse community members across the country who expressed their views on how medical education, clinical care, and research could or did impact their health experiences. These interviews were framed within the context of the relationship between historically oppressed groups and the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials underway. From the three-way partnership formed with the AAMC, AAMC CHARGE participants, and 30 community members from racially and ethnically diverse groups, qualitative methods provided lived experiences supporting other literature on the lack of trust between oppressed communities and AMCs. This led to the development of the Principles of Trustworthiness (PoT) toolkit, which features ten principles inspired by community members\u27 insights into how AMCs can demonstrate they are worthy of their community\u27s trust. In the end, the three-way partnership serves as a successful model for other national medical and health organizations to establish community engaged processes that elicit and prioritize lived experiences describing relationships between AMCs and oppressed communities

Lawmakers\u27 Use of Scientific Evidence Can Be Improved

Core to the goal of scientific exploration is the opportunity to guide future decision-making. Yet, elected officials often miss opportunities to use science in their policymaking. This work reports on an experiment with the US Congress-evaluating the effects of a randomized, dual-population (i.e., researchers and congressional offices) outreach model for supporting legislative use of research evidence regarding child and family policy issues. In this experiment, we found that congressional offices randomized to the intervention reported greater value of research for understanding issues than the control group following implementation. More research use was also observed in legislation introduced by the intervention group. Further, we found that researchers randomized to the intervention advanced their own policy knowledge and engagement as well as reported benefits for their research following implementation

Lawmakers' use of scientific evidence can be improved.

Core to the goal of scientific exploration is the opportunity to guide future decision-making. Yet, elected officials often miss opportunities to use science in their policymaking. This work reports on an experiment with the US Congress-evaluating the effects of a randomized, dual-population (i.e., researchers and congressional offices) outreach model for supporting legislative use of research evidence regarding child and family policy issues. In this experiment, we found that congressional offices randomized to the intervention reported greater value of research for understanding issues than the control group following implementation. More research use was also observed in legislation introduced by the intervention group. Further, we found that researchers randomized to the intervention advanced their own policy knowledge and engagement as well as reported benefits for their research following implementation

Improving the influence of evidence in policy creation: an ethnographic study of the research-to-policy collaborative

Background:Despite the known need for empirical research-to-policy studies, little is known about the factors and conditions needed to support meaningful evidence use or how to intervene to promote quality evidence use. Aims and objectives:To study research-policy processes empirically and descriptively, we conducted an ethnography that focused on the impact of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) on legislator and researcher evidence use or policy engagement, including whether and how researchers and policymakers created and sustained meaningful relationships. Methods:The ethnography included participant observation as well as pre- and post- semi-structured interviews from policymakers (n=17), researchers (n=23), and RPC staff (n=5). The team attended relevant events as well as observed the formal and informal ways research is used in policymaking. Findings:In the paper, we describe how 1) legislative priorities were identified; 2) networks were established and maintained; 3) trainings evolved over time; 4) relationships between RPC staff, congressional staff, and researchers were facilitated; and 5) RPC followed up with policymakers and researchers. Discussion and conclusions:We 1) describe the experiences of participants and whether involvement in the intervention changed attitudes or behaviours about evidence use in policy; 2) describe the RPC process in practice, and how it was implemented and evolved over time; and 3) better understand the conditions supporting evidence use in policymaking. We conclude with the value of the RPC as a resource to fill a niche within the evidence and policy space, as well as suggestions for future research-to-policy programmes and practices.</jats:sec

What works to promote research-policy engagement?

Background:To improve the use of evidence in policy and practice, many organisations and individuals seek to promote research-policy engagement activities, but little is known about what works. Aims and objectives:We sought (a) to identify existing research-policy engagement activities, and (b) evidence on impacts of these activities on research and decision making. Methods:We conducted systematic desk-based searches for organisations active in this area (such as funders, practice organisations, and universities) and reviewed websites, strategy documents, published evaluations and relevant research. We used a stakeholder roundtable, and follow-up survey and interviews, with a subset of the sample to check the quality and robustness of our approach. Findings:We identified 1923 initiatives in 513 organisations world-wide. However, we found only 57 organisations had publicly-available evaluations, and only 6% (141/2321) of initiatives were evaluated. Most activities aim to improve research dissemination or create relationships. Existing evaluations offer an often rich and nuanced picture of evidence use in particular settings (such as local government), sectors (such as policing), or by particular providers (such as learned societies), but are extremely scarce. Discussion and conclusions:Funders, research- and decision-making organisations have contributed to a huge expansion in research-policy engagement initiatives. Unfortunately, these initiatives tend not to draw on existing evidence and theory, and are mostly unevaluated. The rudderless mass of activity therefore fails to provide useful lessons for those wishing to improve evidence use, leading to wasted time and resources. Future initiatives should draw on existing evidence about what works, seek to contribute to this evidence base, and respond to a more realistic picture of the decision-making context.</jats:sec