PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Although surveillance systems used to mitigate disasters serve essential public health functions, communities of color have experienced disproportionate harms (eg, criminalization) as a result of historic and enhanced surveillance.
UNASSIGNED: To address this, we developed and piloted a novel, equity-based scoring system to evaluate surveillance systems regarding their potential and actual risk of adverse effects on communities made vulnerable through increased exposure to policing, detention/incarceration, deportation, and disruption of access to social services or public resources. To develop the scoring system, we reviewed the literature and surveyed an expert panel on surveillance to identify specific harms (eg, increased policing) that occur through surveillance approaches.
UNASSIGNED: Scores were based on type of information collected (individual and/or neighborhood level) and evidence of sharing information with law enforcement. Scores were 0 (no risk of harm identified), 1 (potential for risk), 2 (evidence of risk), and U (data not publicly accessible). To pilot the scoring system, 44 surveillance systems were identified between June 2020 and October 2020 through an environmental scan of systems directly related to COVID-19 (n=21), behavioral and health-related services (n=11), and racism and racism-related factors (n=12). A score of 0-2 was assigned to 91% (n=40) of the systems; 9% were scored U; 30% (n=13) scored a 0. Half scored a 1 (n=22), indicating a \"potential for the types of harm of concern in this analysis.\" \"Evidence of harm,\" a score of 2, was found for 12% (n=5).
UNASSIGNED: The potential for surveillance systems to compromise the health and well-being of racialized and/or vulnerable populations has been understudied. This project developed and piloted a scoring system to accomplish this equity-based imperative. The nobler pursuits of public health to improve the health for all must be reconciled with these potential harms.
UNASSIGNED: To address this, we developed and piloted a novel, equity-based scoring system to evaluate surveillance systems regarding their potential and actual risk of adverse effects on communities made vulnerable through increased exposure to policing, detention/incarceration, deportation, and disruption of access to social services or public resources. To develop the scoring system, we reviewed the literature and surveyed an expert panel on surveillance to identify specific harms (eg, increased policing) that occur through surveillance approaches.
UNASSIGNED: Scores were based on type of information collected (individual and/or neighborhood level) and evidence of sharing information with law enforcement. Scores were 0 (no risk of harm identified), 1 (potential for risk), 2 (evidence of risk), and U (data not publicly accessible). To pilot the scoring system, 44 surveillance systems were identified between June 2020 and October 2020 through an environmental scan of systems directly related to COVID-19 (n=21), behavioral and health-related services (n=11), and racism and racism-related factors (n=12). A score of 0-2 was assigned to 91% (n=40) of the systems; 9% were scored U; 30% (n=13) scored a 0. Half scored a 1 (n=22), indicating a \"potential for the types of harm of concern in this analysis.\" \"Evidence of harm,\" a score of 2, was found for 12% (n=5).
UNASSIGNED: The potential for surveillance systems to compromise the health and well-being of racialized and/or vulnerable populations has been understudied. This project developed and piloted a scoring system to accomplish this equity-based imperative. The nobler pursuits of public health to improve the health for all must be reconciled with these potential harms.
摘要：
■尽管用于减轻灾害的监测系统具有基本的公共卫生功能，有色人种社区经历了不成比例的伤害(例如，刑事定罪)是历史性的和加强的监督的结果。
■为了解决这个问题，我们开发并试行了一部小说，基于公平的评分系统，以评估监测系统对因更多接触警务而变得脆弱的社区的潜在和实际不利影响风险，拘留/监禁，驱逐出境,以及中断获得社会服务或公共资源的机会。为了开发评分系统，我们回顾了文献，并调查了一个监测专家小组，以确定具体的危害(例如，加强警务)通过监视方法发生的。
■分数基于收集的信息类型（个人和/或邻里级别）以及与执法部门共享信息的证据。分数为0(没有发现伤害风险)，1（潜在风险），2（风险证据），和U（不可公开访问的数据）。为了试点评分系统，在2020年6月至2020年10月期间，通过对与COVID-19直接相关的系统的环境扫描，确定了44个监测系统(n=21)，行为和健康相关服务(n=11)，种族主义和种族主义相关因素(n=12)。91％（n=40）的系统评分为0-2分；9％的评分为U；30％（n=13）的评分为0。一半得分为1（n=22），在此分析中表示关注的损害类型的可能性。\"\"伤害证据,“得分为2分，为12%(n=5)。
■监测系统损害种族化和/或易受伤害人群的健康和福祉的可能性尚未得到充分研究。该项目开发并试行了一种评分系统，以实现这种基于公平的要求。为了改善所有人的健康，对公共卫生的崇高追求必须与这些潜在的危害相协调。
■为了解决这个问题，我们开发并试行了一部小说，基于公平的评分系统，以评估监测系统对因更多接触警务而变得脆弱的社区的潜在和实际不利影响风险，拘留/监禁，驱逐出境,以及中断获得社会服务或公共资源的机会。为了开发评分系统，我们回顾了文献，并调查了一个监测专家小组，以确定具体的危害(例如，加强警务)通过监视方法发生的。
■分数基于收集的信息类型（个人和/或邻里级别）以及与执法部门共享信息的证据。分数为0(没有发现伤害风险)，1（潜在风险），2（风险证据），和U（不可公开访问的数据）。为了试点评分系统，在2020年6月至2020年10月期间，通过对与COVID-19直接相关的系统的环境扫描，确定了44个监测系统(n=21)，行为和健康相关服务(n=11)，种族主义和种族主义相关因素(n=12)。91％（n=40）的系统评分为0-2分；9％的评分为U；30％（n=13）的评分为0。一半得分为1（n=22），在此分析中表示关注的损害类型的可能性。\"\"伤害证据,“得分为2分，为12%(n=5)。
■监测系统损害种族化和/或易受伤害人群的健康和福祉的可能性尚未得到充分研究。该项目开发并试行了一种评分系统，以实现这种基于公平的要求。为了改善所有人的健康，对公共卫生的崇高追求必须与这些潜在的危害相协调。
