UNASSIGNED: Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) Americans have a higher incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and worse survival than non-Hispanic white (NHW) Americans, but the relative contributions of biological versus access to care remain poorly characterized. This study used two nationwide cohorts in different healthcare contexts to study health system effects on this disparity.
UNASSIGNED: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry as well as the United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) to identify adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 2010 and 2020 who identified as non-Hispanic Black (NHB) or non-Hispanic white (NHW). Stratified survival analyses were performed using a primary endpoint of overall survival, and sensitivity analyses were performed using cancer-specific survival.
UNASSIGNED: We identified 263,893 CRC patients in the SEER registry (36,662 (14%) NHB; 226,271 (86%) NHW) and 24,375 VA patients (4,860 (20%) NHB; 19,515 (80%) NHW). In the SEER registry, NHB patients had worse OS than NHW patients: median OS of 57 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 55-58) versus 72 months (95% CI 71-73) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.14, 95% CI 1.12-1.15, p = 0.001). In contrast, VA NHB median OS was 65 months (95% CI 62-69) versus NHW 69 months (95% CI 97-71) (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.07, p = 0.375). There was significant interaction in the SEER registry between race and Medicare age eligibility (p < 0.001); NHB race had more effect in patients <65 years old (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.39-1.49, p < 0.001) than in those ≥65 (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11-1.15, p < 0.001). In the VA, age stratification was not significant (p = 0.21).
UNASSIGNED: Racial disparities in CRC survival in the general US population are significantly attenuated in Medicare-aged patients. This pattern is not present in the VA, suggesting that access to care may be an important component of racial disparities in this disease.

BACKGROUND: Perceived discrimination in health care settings can have adverse consequences on mental health in minority groups. However, the association between perceived discrimination and mental health is prone to unmeasured confounding. The study aims to quantitatively evaluate the influence of unmeasured confounding in this association, using g-estimation.
METHODS: In a predominantly African American cohort, we applied g-estimation to estimate the association between perceived discrimination and mental health, adjusted and unadjusted for measured confounders. Mental health was measured using clinical diagnoses of anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder. Perceived discrimination was measured as the number of patient-reported discrimination events in health care settings. Measured confounders included demographic, socioeconomic, residential and health characteristics. The influence of confounding was denoted as α1 from g-estimation. We compared α1 for measured and unmeasured confounding.
RESULTS: Strong associations between perceived discrimination in health care settings and mental health outcomes were observed. For anxiety, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) unadjusted and adjusted for measured confounders were 1.30 (1.21, 1.39) and 1.26 (1.17, 1.36), respectively. The α1 for measured confounding was -0.066. Unmeasured confounding with α1=0.200, which was over three times that of measured confounding, corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.12 (1.01, 1.24). Similar results were observed for other mental health outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with measured confounding, unmeasured that was three times measured confounding was not enough to explain away the association between perceived discrimination and mental health, suggesting that this association is robust to unmeasured confounding. This study provides a novel framework to quantitatively evaluate unmeasured confounding.

Blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer disease (AD) may facilitate testing of historically under-represented groups. The Study of Race to Understand Alzheimer Biomarkers (SORTOUT-AB) is a multi-center longitudinal study to compare AD biomarkers in participants who identify their race as either Black or white. Plasma samples from 324 Black and 1,547 white participants underwent analysis with C2N Diagnostics\' PrecivityAD test for Aβ42 and Aβ40. Compared to white individuals, Black individuals had higher average plasma Aβ42/40 levels at baseline, consistent with a lower average level of amyloid pathology. Interestingly, this difference resulted from lower average levels of plasma Aβ40 in Black participants. Despite the differences, Black and white individuals had similar longitudinal rates of change in Aβ42/40, consistent with a similar rate of amyloid accumulation. Our results agree with multiple recent studies demonstrating a lower prevalence of amyloid pathology in Black individuals, and additionally suggest that amyloid accumulates consistently across both groups.

UNASSIGNED: Current research in epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) is limited to non-Hispanic White individuals. It is imperative to improve inclusivity by considering racial and ethnic minorities in EAA research.
UNASSIGNED: To compare non-Hispanic Black with non-Hispanic White survivors of childhood cancer by examining the associations of EAA with cancer treatment exposures, potential racial and ethnic disparity in EAA, and mediating roles of social determinants of health (SDOH).
UNASSIGNED: In this cross-sectional study, participants were from the St Jude Lifetime Cohort, which was initiated in 2007 with ongoing follow-up. Eligible participants included non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White survivors of childhood cancer treated at St Jude Children\'s Research Hospital between 1962 and 2012 who had DNA methylation data. Data analysis was conducted from February 2023 to May 2024.
UNASSIGNED: Three treatment exposures for childhood cancer (chest radiotherapy, alkylating agents, and epipodophyllotoxin).
UNASSIGNED: DNA methylation was generated from peripheral blood mononuclear cell-derived DNA. EAA was calculated as residuals from regressing Levine or Horvath epigenetic age on chronological age. SDOH included educational attainment, annual personal income, and the socioeconomic area deprivation index (ADI). General linear models evaluated cross-sectional associations of EAA with race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White) and/or SDOH, adjusting for sex, body mass index, smoking, and cancer treatments. Adjusted least square means (ALSM) of EAA were calculated for group comparisons. Mediation analysis treated SDOH as mediators with average causal mediation effect (ACME) calculated for the association of EAA with race and ethnicity.
UNASSIGNED: Among a total of 1706 survivors including 230 non-Hispanic Black survivors (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 9.5 [4.3-14.3] years; 103 male [44.8%] and 127 female [55.2%]) and 1476 non-Hispanic White survivors (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 9.3 [3.9-14.6] years; 766 male [51.9%] and 710 female [48.1%]), EAA was significantly greater among non-Hispanic Black survivors (ALSM = 1.41; 95% CI, 0.66 to 2.16) than non-Hispanic White survivors (ALSM = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.81). Among non-Hispanic Black survivors, EAA was significantly increased among those exposed to chest radiotherapy (ALSM = 2.82; 95% CI, 1.37 to 4.26) vs those unexposed (ALSM = 0.46; 95% CI, -0.60 to 1.51), among those exposed to alkylating agents (ALSM = 2.33; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.45) vs those unexposed (ALSM = 0.95; 95% CI, -0.38 to 2.27), and among those exposed to epipodophyllotoxins (ALSM = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.27 to 4.40) vs those unexposed (ALSM = 0.44; 95% CI, -0.52 to 1.40). The association of EAA with epipodophyllotoxins differed by race and ethnicity (β for non-Hispanic Black survivors, 2.39 years; 95% CI, 0.74 to 4.04 years; β for non-Hispanic White survivors, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.31 years) and the difference was significant (1.77 years; 95% CI, 0.01 to 3.53 years; P for interaction = .049). Racial and ethnic disparities in EAA were mediated by educational attainment (UNASSIGNED: In this cross-sectional study of childhood cancer survivors, race and ethnicity moderated the association of EAA with epipodophyllotoxin exposure and racial and ethnic differences in EAA were partially mediated by educational attainment and ADI, indicating differential treatment toxic effects by race and ethnicity. These findings suggest that improving social support systems may mitigate socioeconomic disadvantages associated with even greater accelerated aging and reduce health disparities among childhood cancer survivors.

Overly restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria can reduce generalizability, slow enrollment, and disproportionately exclude historically underrepresented populations. The eligibility criteria for 196 Alzheimer\'s Disease and Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) trials funded by the National Institute on Aging were analyzed to identify common criteria and their potential to disproportionately exclude participants by race/ethnicity. The trials were categorized by type (48 Phase I/II pharmacological, 7 Phase III/IV pharmacological, 128 non-pharmacological, 7 diagnostic, and 6 neuropsychiatric) and target population (51 AD/ADRD, 58 Mild Cognitive Impairment, 25 at-risk, and 62 cognitively normal). Eligibility criteria were coded into the following categories: Medical, Neurologic, Psychiatric, and Procedural. A literature search was conducted to describe the prevalence of disparities for eligibility criteria for African Americans/Black (AA/B), Hispanic/Latino (H/L), American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI) populations. The trials had a median of 15 criteria. The most frequent criterion were age cutoffs (87% of trials), specified neurologic (65%), and psychiatric disorders (61%). Underrepresented groups could be disproportionately excluded by 16 eligibility categories; 42% of trials specified English-speakers only in their criteria. Most trials (82%) contain poorly operationalized criteria (i.e., criteria not well defined that can have multiple interpretations/means of implementation) and criteria that may reduce racial/ethnic enrollment diversity.

In the United States, maternal health inequities disproportionately affect Global Majority (e.g., Asian, Black, and Hispanic) populations. Despite a substantial body of research underscoring the influence of racism on these inequities, little research has examined how experiences of gendered racial microaggressions during pregnancy and birth impact racially and ethnically diverse Global Majority pregnant and birthing people in obstetric hospital settings. We evaluated the psychometric properties of an adapted version of Lewis & Neville\'s Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale, using data collected from 417 Global Majority birthing people. Findings from our study indicate that our adapted GRMS is a valid tool for assessing the experiences of gendered racial microaggressions in hospital-based obstetric care settings among Global Majority pregnant and birthing people whose preferred languages are English or Spanish. Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis demonstrated high construct validity of the adapted GRMS scale (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.1089 (95% CI 0.0921, 0.1263), Comparative Fit Index = 0.977, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.075, log-likelihood c2 = -85.6, df = 8). IRT analyses demonstrated that the unidimensional model was preferred to the bi-dimensional model as it was more interpretable, had lower AIC and BIC, and all items had large discrimination parameters onto a single factor (all discrimination parameters > 3.0). Given that we found similar response profiles among Black and Hispanic respondents, our Differential Item Functioning analyses support validity among Black, Hispanic, and Spanish-speaking birthing people. Inter-item correlations demonstrated adequate scale reliability, α = 0.97, and empirical reliability = 0.67. Pearsons correlations was used to assess the criterion validity of our adapted scale. Our scale\'s total score was significantly and positively related to postpartum depression and anxiety. Researchers and practitioners should seek to address instances of gendered racial microaggressions in obstetric settings, as they are manifestations of systemic and interpersonal racism, and impact postpartum health.

Many have argued that discrimination against pit bulls is rooted in the breed\'s association with Black owners and culture. We theoretically and empirically interrogate that argument in a variety of ways and uncover striking similarities between the racialization of pit bulls and other racialized issues (e.g., poverty and crime) in public opinion and policy implementation. After detailing the reasons to expect pit bulls to be racialized as Black despite dog ownership in the U.S. generally being raced as white, the article shows: (1) Most Americans associate pit bulls with Black people. (2) Anti-Black attitudes, in general, are significant, independent, predictors of both anti-pit views and of preferring other breeds over them; (3) stereotypes of Black men as violent, in particular, are significant, independent, predictors of both anti-pit views and of preferring other breeds over them. (4) Implicit racialization through a national survey experiment further eroded support for legalizing pits, with the treatment effect significantly conditioned by respondent\'s race. And (5) state-level racial prejudice is a significant negative predictor of enacting legislation to preempt breed-specific bans. We conclude with our findings\' broader insights into the nature of U.S. racial politics. Michael Tesler, mtesler@uci.edu, corresponding author, is Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine; Mary McThomas, mary.mcthomas@uci.edu, is Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the American Political Science Association\'s annual meeting. We thank Maneesh Arora, Rachel Bernhard, Nathan Chan, Louis Pickett, David Sears, DeSipio, Adam Duberstein, Jane Junn, Claire Kim, Jessica Manforti, J. Scott Matthews, Justin.

OBJECTIVE: The syndemic that is COVID-19 and the disproportionate policing of Black communities have recently generated mass social consciousness of the anti-Black racism (ABR) pervading health, social, and cultural institutions. However, little is known about the implementation of public health measures addressing ABR in an evolving pandemic context. The objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of public health initiatives undertaken to address ABR across North American jurisdictions between December 2019 and June 2022.
METHODS: A search for public health initiatives was conducted in June 2021 across MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSChost, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and Google.ca. Included initiatives were those focussing on Black, African diasporic, or African American communities in the North American context. Community-led action, as well as initiatives in primary healthcare care, academic journals, and those broadly focused on racialized communities, were excluded from this review.
RESULTS: Seventy-five articles were included in this review, suggesting that ABR emerged as a public health priority. Strategies and action plans to address structural ABR were the most common types of initiatives observed (n = 21), followed by programs or interventions (n = 16), budget allocations or investments (n = 8), task forces (n = 7), guidance and recommendations for organizational capacity (n = 8), action-oriented declarations of ABR as a public health crisis (n = 8), and legislation and mandates (n = 7). Initiatives were largely cross-cutting of two or more socioeconomic themes (n = 23), while organizational change was also common (n = 16). Gaps in the current literature include a lack of community participation and outcome measurement for actions identified, which limit institutional accountability to communities of interest.
CONCLUSIONS: This research provides insights on public health accountability to social justice. This research outlines activities in upstream interventions, organizational transformation, and resource allocation in shaping anti-racist change, and require evaluation and input from those whom initiatives are intended to serve.

Among the consequences of systemic racism in health care are significant health disparities among Black/African American individuals with comorbid physical and mental health conditions. Despite decades of studies acknowledging health disparities based on race, significant change has not occurred. There are shockingly few evidence-based antiracism interventions. New paradigms are needed to intervene on, and not just document, racism in health care systems. We are developing a transformative paradigm for new antiracism interventions for primary care settings that integrate mental and physical health care. The paradigm is the first of its kind to integrate community-based participatory research and systems science, within an established model of early phase translation to rigorously define new antiracism interventions. This protocol will use a novel application of systems sciences by combining the qualitative systems sciences methods (group model building; GMB) with quantitative methods (simulation modeling) to develop a comprehensive and community-engaged view of both the drivers of racism and the potential impact of antiracism interventions. Community participants from two integrated primary health care systems will engage in group GMB workshops with researchers to 1) Describe and map the complex dynamic systems driving racism in health care practices, 2) Identify leverage points for disruptive antiracism interventions, policies and practices, and 3) Review and prioritize a list of possible intervention strategies. Advisory committees will provide feedback on the design of GMB procedures, screen potential intervention components for impact, feasibility, and acceptability, and identify gaps for further exploration. Simulation models will be generated based on contextual factors and provider/patient characteristics. Using Item Response Theory, we will initiate the process of developing core measures for assessing the effectiveness of interventions at the organizational-systems and provider levels to be tested under a variety of conditions. While we focus on Black/African Americans, we hope that the resulting transformative paradigm can be applied to improve health equity among other marginalized groups.

BACKGROUND: Health disparities between people who are African American (AA) versus their White counterparts have been well established, but disparities among AA people have not. The current study introduces a systematic method to determine subgroups within a sample of AA people based on their social determinants of health.
METHODS: Health screening data collected in the West Side of Chicago, an underserved predominantly AA area, in 2018 were used. Exploratory latent class analysis was used to determine subgroups of participants based on their responses to 16 variables, each pertaining to a specific social determinant of health.
RESULTS: Four unique clusters of participants were found, corresponding to those with \"many unmet needs\", \"basic unmet needs\", \"unmet healthcare needs\", and \"few unmet needs\".
CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the utility of analytically determining meaningful subgroups among a sample of AA people and their social determinants of health. Understanding the differences within an underserved population may contribute to future interventions to eliminate health disparities.