We conducted focus groups with defense lawyers, clinicians, and education advocates to gather their perspectives on families' experiences with the juvenile justice system. Our quantitative descriptive analysis identified a range of themes such as discussions about the poor treatment of families as well as recommendations for a shifting of power to families. These perspectives may provide insights about the context in which families are expected to participate in interventions, meet probationary demands, and provide for their youth's well-being. The results support evidence gathered from families about the impact of youth incarceration on their lives and has implications for practitioners and researchers working with families whose youth have been incarcerated.

Family-based interventions are efficacious for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) detection, prevention, and care, but they are not broadly diffused. Understanding intervention adaptation and translation processes can support evidence-based intervention (EBI) diffusion processes. This paper provides a narrative review of a series of EBI for families affected by HIV (FAH) that were adapted across five randomized controlled trials in the US, Thailand, and South Africa over 15 years. The FAH interventions targeted parents living with HIV and their children or caregiver supports. Parents with HIV were primarily mothers infected through sexual transmission. The EBIs for FAH are reviewed with attention to commonalities and variations in risk environments and intervention features. Frameworks for common and robust intervention functions, principles, practice elements, and delivery processes are utilized to highlight commonalities and adaptations for each location, time period, and intervention delivery settings. Health care, housing, food, and financial security vary dramatically in each risk environment. Yet, all FAH face common health, mental health, transmission, and relationship challenges. The EBIs efficaciously addressed these common challenges and were adapted across contexts with fidelity to robust intervention principles, processes, factors, and practices. Intervention adaptation teams have a series of structural decision points: mainstreaming HIV with other local health priorities or not; selecting an optimal delivery site (clinics, homes, community centers); and how to translate intervention protocols to local contexts and cultures. Replication of interventions with fidelity must occur at the level of standardized functions and robust principles, processes, and practices, not manualized protocols. Adopting a continuous quality improvement paradigm will enhance rapid and global diffusion of EBI for FAH.

Background

Low levels of medical care engagement have been noted for HIV-positive people leaving systems of incarceration in the United States. Substance misuse frequently co-occurs with criminal justice involvement in individuals who are living with HIV.

Methods

We analyzed data from in-depth interviews with 19 HIV-positive individuals who were currently or formerly incarcerated in order to elucidate challenges faced in accessing care and maintaining HIV treatment regimens when cycling out of (and often back into) custody. Our thematic analysis used an ecosocial framework to describe participants' shifts between substance use treatment, medical care, and criminal justice systems.

Results

Dominant themes included the dramatic increase in HIV-treatment-related autonomy required following release from jail because of differences in care delivery between custody-based and community-based care systems; the important, but temporary stabilization provided by residential substance use treatment programmes; and the inconsistency of substance use treatment approaches with chronic care models of disease management.

Conclusion

Enhanced integration of criminal justice, medical care, and substance use treatment institutions in planning for reentry of HIV populations may ease the impact of the dramatic shifts in context that often dissuade linkage and retention. This integration should include coordination with custody release processes, periodic assessments for active substance misuse in HIV treatment settings, support for (re)establishing health-promoting social networks, and options for long-term, residential substance use treatment programmes.

Inadequate attention to racial health equity is a common challenge to effective, reliable monitoring and mitigation of COVID-19 disparities. Efforts to monitor and mitigate COVID-19 disparities continue to be hampered by inadequacies in how surveillance systems collect, tabulate, and report COVID-19-related outcomes. We conducted environmental scans of existing public health surveillance systems and reporting standards, literature reviews, focus groups with surveillance experts, and consultations with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and an expert panel on surveillance to identify and explore strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in how existing systems monitor COVID-19 and their implications for addressing disparities in related outcomes. We present recommendations based on these reviews and propose a core minimum set of health indicators and best-practice standards for reporting these indicators by COVID-19 surveillance systems to monitor racial/ethnic and other disparities in the pandemic. These recommendations are relevant to monitoring disparities in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and may inform monitoring of future epidemics. This discussion is part of an effort by Project REFOCUS to develop syndemic surveillance systems for monitoring the intersecting pandemics of COVID-19 and racism.

Background

Racism persists, underscoring the need to rapidly document the perspectives and experiences of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) groups as well as marginalized populations (eg, formerly incarcerated people) during pandemics.

Objective

This methods paper offers a model for using Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) and related critical methodologies (ie, feminist and decolonizing methods) to inform the conceptualization, methods, and dissemination of qualitative research undertaken in response to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.

Sample

Using purposive snowball sampling, we identified organizations involved with health equity and social justice advocacy among BIPOC and socially marginalized populations. Focus group participants (N=63) included community members, organizers, activists, and health workers.

Design

We conducted topic-specific (eg, reproductive justice) and population-specific (eg, Asian and Pacific Islander) focus groups (N=16 focus groups) in rapid succession using Zoom software.

Methods

A self-reflexive, iterative praxis guided theorization, data collection and analysis. We obtained community input on study design, the semi-structured discussion guide, ethical considerations and dissemination. Applying PHCRP, we assessed our assumptions iteratively. We transcribed each interview verbatim, de-identified the data, then used two distinct qualitative techniques to code and analyze them: thematic analysis to identify unifying concepts that recur across focus groups and narrative analysis to keep each participant's story intact.

Results

The praxis facilitated relationship-building with partners and supported the iterative assessment of assumptions. Logistical constraints included difficulty ensuring the confidentiality of virtual discussions.

Conclusions

These novel approaches provide an effective model for community-engaged qualitative research during a pandemic.

The populations impacted most by COVID are also impacted by racism and related social stigma; however, traditional surveillance tools may not capture the intersectionality of these relationships. We conducted a detailed assessment of diverse surveillance systems and databases to identify characteristics, constraints and best practices that might inform the development of a novel COVID surveillance system that achieves these aims. We used subject area expertise, an expert panel and CDC guidance to generate an initial list of N > 50 existing surveillance systems as of 29 October 2020, and systematically excluded those not advancing the project aims. This yielded a final reduced group (n = 10) of COVID surveillance systems (n = 3), other public health systems (4) and systems tracking racism and/or social stigma (n = 3, which we evaluated by using CDC evaluation criteria and Critical Race Theory. Overall, the most important contribution of COVID-19 surveillance systems is their real-time (e.g., daily) or near-real-time (e.g., weekly) reporting; however, they are severely constrained by the lack of complete data on race/ethnicity, making it difficult to monitor racial/ethnic inequities. Other public health systems have validated measures of psychosocial and behavioral factors and some racism or stigma-related factors but lack the timeliness needed in a pandemic. Systems that monitor racism report historical data on, for instance, hate crimes, but do not capture current patterns, and it is unclear how representativeness the findings are. Though existing surveillance systems offer important strengths for monitoring health conditions or racism and related stigma, new surveillance strategies are needed to monitor their intersecting relationships more rigorously.