Background: This year has seen the emergence of two major crises, a significant increase in the frequency and severity of hurricanes and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known as to how each of these two events have impacted the other. A rapid qualitative assessment was conducted to determine the impact of the pandemic on preparedness and response to natural disasters and the impact of past experiences with natural disasters in responding to the pandemic. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 representatives of 24 different community-based programs in southern Louisiana. Data were analyzed using procedures embedded in the Rapid Assessment Procedure-Informed Community Ethnography methodology, using techniques of immersion and crystallization and focused thematic analysis. Results: The pandemic has impacted the form and function of disaster preparedness, making it harder to plan for evacuations in the event of a hurricane. Specific concerns included being able to see people in person, providing food and other resources to residents who shelter in place, finding volunteers to assist in food distribution and other forms of disaster response, competing for funds to support disaster-related activities, developing new support infrastructures, and focusing on equity in disaster preparedness. However, several strengths based on disaster preparedness experience and capabilities were identified, including providing a framework for how to respond and adapt to COVID and integration of COVID response with their normal disaster preparedness activities. Conclusions: Although prior experience has enabled community-based organizations to respond to the pandemic, the pandemic is also creating new challenges to preparing for and responding to natural disasters.

Coastal communities in South Louisiana and worldwide are increasingly impacted by climate-related events such as hurricanes, floods, and rising sea levels. In addition, they have recently faced the burden of a global pandemic that may also be a consequence of climate change. In many under-resourced communities, nongovernmental community-based organizations (CBOs) represent the backbone of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little is known about the pandemic's impact on the efforts of these organizations to support and sustain individual and community resilience to this event and to the disruptive impacts of climate change-related weather events. Procedures embedded in the Rapid Assessment Procedure - Informed Community Ethnography methodology were used to analyze data collected from semi-structured interviews with 26 representatives of 24 different community-based programs in South Louisiana. The pandemic created numerous challenges to under-resourced community resilience by revealing the fragmented nature of community solidarity in adhering to public health guidelines; the lack of available social, political, and economic resources; and the influence of systemic racism and social determinants of health. To address these challenges, communities relied on social connections and support; prior experiences with climate-related disasters and adversity; and the resilience building, supporting, and sustaining efforts of CBOs. These organizations have responded to these challenges through provision of new services, expansion of existing services, providing access to training webinars, partnerships with other CBOs, and initiatives to address broader social issues, while balancing the disparity between increased demand and reduced supply of services and increased reliance on technology that is not uniformly accessible to all communities and residents. In responding to the pandemic, CBOs have played a major role in addressing the threats to individual and community resilience needed to prepare for and respond to natural disasters and other consequences of global environmental change in underserved communities.

Significance

Prior research suggests that Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support compared with Resources for Services (RS) for program technical assistance to implement depression quality improvement programs improves 6- and 12-month client mental-health related quality of life (MHRQL); however, effects for clients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC) are unknown.

Objective

To explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups.

Design

Secondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial.

Setting

93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods.

Participants

Of 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ≥3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys.

Intervention

CEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs.

Outcomes and analyses

Primary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ≥3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory).

Results

Among MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ≥4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC.

Conclusions

CEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions.

The coronavirus pandemic of 2019 (COVID-19) has created unprecedented changes to everyday life for millions of Americans due to job loss, school closures, stay-at-home orders and health and mortality consequences. In turn, physicians, academics, and policymakers have turned their attention to the public mental health toll of COVID-19. This commentary reporting from the field integrates perceptions of academic, community, health system, and policy leaders from state, county, and local levels in commenting on community mental health needs in the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholders noted the broad public health scope of mental health challenges while expressing concern about exacerbation of existing disparities in access and adverse social determinants, including for communities with high COVID-19 infection rates, such as African Americans and Latinos. They noted rapid changes toward telehealth and remote care, and the importance of understanding impacts of changes, including who may benefit or have limited access, with implications for future services delivery. Needs for expanded workforce and training in mental health were noted, as well as potential public health value of expanding digital resources tailored to local populations for enhancing resilience to stressors. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to changes in delivery of health care services across populations and systems. Concerns over the mental health impact of COVID-19 has enhanced interest in remote mental care delivery and preventive services, while being mindful of potential for enhanced disparities and needs to address social determinants of health. Ongoing quality improvement across systems can integrate lessons learned to enhance a public mental well-being.

Addressing behavioral health impacts of major disasters is a priority of increasing national attention, but there are limited examples of implementation strategies to guide new disaster responses. We provide a case study of an effort being applied in response to the 2016 Great Flood in Baton Rouge. Resilient Baton Rouge was designed to support recovery after major flooding by building local capacity to implement an expanded model of depression collaborative care for adults, coupled with identifying and responding to local priorities and assets for recovery. For a descriptive, initial evaluation, we coupled analysis of documents and process notes with descriptive surveys of participants in initial training and orientation, including preliminary comparisons among licensed and non-licensed participants to identify training priorities. We expanded local behavioral health service delivery capacity through subgrants to four agencies, provision of training tailored to licensed and non-licensed providers and development of advisory councils and partnerships with grassroots and government agencies. We also undertook initial efforts to enhance national collaboration around post-disaster resilience. Our partnered processes and lessons learned may be applicable to other communities that aim to promote resilience, as well as planning for and responding to post-disaster behavioral health needs.

Objective

We describe the rationale, development, and progress on the Community and Patient Partnered Research Network (CPPRN). The CPPRN builds on more than a decade of partnered work and is designed to promote health equity by developing partnered research on behavioral health and social risk factors in Los Angeles and New Orleans.

Setting

A community-academic partnership across Los Angeles County and New Orleans.

Methods

Review of rationale, history, structure, activities and progress in applying community partnered participatory research (CPPR) to CPPRN.

Findings

Patient and community stakeholders participated in all phases of development, including local and national activities. Key developments include partnered planning efforts, progress on aggregating a large, de-identified dataset across county agencies, and development of an information technology-supported screening approach for behavioral and social determinants in health care, social, and community-based settings.

Conclusion

The CPPRN represents a promising approach for research data networks, balancing the potential benefit of information technology and data analytic approaches while addressing potential risks and priorities of relevant stakeholders.

This manuscript presents the protocol and participatory planning process for implementing the Community Resilience Learning Collaborative and Research Network (C-LEARN) study. C-LEARN is designed to determine how to build a service program and individual client capacity to improve mental health-related quality of life among individuals at risk for depression, with exposure to social risk factors or concerns about environmental hazards in areas of Southern Louisiana at risk for events such as hurricanes and storms. The study uses a Community Partnered Participatory Research (CPPR) framework to incorporate community priorities into study design and implementation. The first phase of C-LEARN is assessment of community priorities, assets, and opportunities for building resilience through key informant interviews and community agency outreach. Findings from this phase will inform the implementation of a two-level (program-level and individual client level) randomized study in up to four South Louisiana communities. Within communities, health and social-community service programs will be randomized to Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for multi-sector coalition support or Technical Assistance (TA) for individual program support to implement evidence-based and community-prioritized intervention toolkits, including an expanded version of depression collaborative care and resources (referrals, manuals) to address social risk factors such as financial or housing instability and for a community resilience approach to disaster preparedness and response. Within each arm, the study will randomize individual adult clients to one of two mobile applications that provide informational resources on services for depression, social risk factors, and disaster response or also provide psychoeducation on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to enhance coping with stress and mood. Planned data collection includes baseline, six-month and brief monthly surveys for clients, and baseline and 12-month surveys for administrators and staff.

Although climate change poses a threat to health and well-being globally, a regional approach to addressing climate-related health equity may be more suitable, appropriate, and appealing to under-resourced communities and countries. In support of this argument, this commentary describes an approach by a network of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers dedicated to promoting climate-related health equity in Small Island Developing States and low- and middle-income countries in the Pacific. We identify three primary sets of needs related to developing a regional capacity to address physical and mental health disparities through research, training, and assistance in policy and practice implementation: (1) limited healthcare facilities and qualified medical and mental health providers; (2) addressing the social impacts related to the cooccurrence of natural hazards, disease outbreaks, and complex emergencies; and (3) building the response capacity and resilience to climate-related extreme weather events and natural hazards.