Lauri Andress

Lee and Cubbin’s (2009) call for a “socially-just” ecological model of physical activity (EMPA) prompted an inquiry into physical activity (PA), active living (AL) research that advances social justice framed as a set of equity-centered principles for research. In response to the call, we conducted a scoping review to explore how PA research has operationalized equity to advance a “socially-just” EMPA. We searched for original research, published between 2010 and 2020, using key terms ‘physical activity’ and ‘equity’ that produced 5,152 non-duplicated records. Title-abstract screening for exclusion/inclusion criteria disqualified 4,392 records. A review protocol and coding guide was developed, piloted, and revised by team members. The remaining 760 abstracts were reviewed and consensus coded by PA Variable (dependent or independent) and Factor (individual outcome or contextual-exposure), Equity (population demographic or social-environmental determinant), and Social Ecological Milieu (SEM) (PAAL-specific or SEM-general policy, system, or environment (PSE) operations. Of the 463 studies selected, PA codified as an individual outcome (67%) more often than as a contextual-exposure (33%) factor. Equity codified more frequently as a population demographic (69%) rather than as a social-environmental determinant (31%). The SEM codified as PAAL-specific (44%) or as SEM-general (56%) PSE factors. Based on multistep study abstract reviews, the selected studies more often missed the opportunity to center equity in PA research by examining social, environmental, political, and systemic factors as institutionalized inequities at the root of PAAL disparities. We will not achieve a “socially-just” EMPA without shared conceptualizations of equity followed by intentional action.

Understanding impacts of the COVID-19 pan­demic among households with children is neces­sary to design appropriate public health responses that protect food and nutrition security. The objec­tive of this research was to understand predictors of food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic among households with at least one child (p < 0.05, a priori). To further illuminate household experiences during this time, two researchers independently coded open-ended survey question data using inductive and deductive approaches to construct themes. Households with children had increased odds of experiencing food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic if they had the following characteristics: Hispanic ethnicity; age between 25 and 44 years; additional adult household members; economic hardship; SNAP/WIC participation; being widowed, divorced, or separated; and report­ing foods not available when shopping. Partici­pants described mainly negative changes to dietary patterns and practices as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. They also described food security chal­lenges and ideas for improving food security. Con­sistent with other data collected and analyzed dur­ing the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study contributes findings that emphasize the need for enhanced public health responses and emer­gency preparedness measures that protect food and nutrition security. Because of the increased short- and long-term consequences including exposure to adverse circumstances, impaired learning, risks to mental health, and poor health outcomes, ensuring an adequate food supply is especially important for households with children.

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)¹ 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' insights into how AMCs can demonstrate they are worthy of their community's trust². 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.

Households with a low-income in rural places experience disproportionate levels of food insecurity. Further research is needed about the nuances in strategies that households with a low-income in rural areas apply to support food security nationally. This study aimed to understand the barriers and strategies that households with a low-income in rural areas experience to obtain a meal and support food security in the United States. We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews among 153 primary grocery shoppers with a low-income residing in rural counties. A majority of family’s ideal meals included animal-based protein, grains, and vegetables. Main themes included struggles to secure food and coping mechanisms. Ten categories included affordability, adequacy, accommodation, appetite, time, food source coordinating, food resource management, reduced quality, rationing for food, and exceptional desperation. These results can inform public health professionals’ efforts when partnering to alleviate food insecurity in rural areas.

As the website Understanding and Dismantling Racism: Crowdsourcing a Pathway Model in Appalachia explains, we are seeking assistance in refining a pathway model that elucidates institutional racism from the unique standpoint of Appalachia. We think that Appalachia has a distinctive cultural toolkit that shapes its orientation on issues. Our goal is to use crowdsourcing to harness this unique Appalachian ethos to refine the Pathway model on Institutional Racism based on comments, edits, questions, and ideas left on the website.

High rates of chronic diseases and increasing nutritional polarization between different income groups in the United States are issues of concern to policymakers and public health officials. Spatial differences in access to food are mainly blamed as the cause for these nutritional inequalities. This study first detected hot and cold spots of food providers in West Virginia and then used those places in a quasi-experimental method (entropy balancing) to study the effects of those places on diabetes and obesity rates. We found that although hot spots have lower rates of chronic diseases than non-hot spots and cold spots have higher rates of chronic diseases than non-cold spots—the situation is complicated. With the findings of income induced chronic disease rates in urban areas, where most hot spots are located, there is evidence of another case for "food swamps." However, in cold spots which are located mainly in rural areas, higher rates of chronic diseases are attributed to a combination of access to food providers along with lacking the means (i.e., income for low-income households) to form healthier habits.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a critical program that helps reduce the risk of food insecurity, yet little is known about how SNAP addresses the needs of rural, food-insecure residents in the United States (U.S.). This study examines how rural, food-insecure residents perceive SNAP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 153 individuals living in six diverse rural regions of Arkansas, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and West Virginia. SNAP was described as a crucial stop-gap program, keeping families from experiencing persistent food insecurity, making food dollars stretch when the family budget is tight, and helping them purchase healthier foods. For many rural residents interviewed, SNAP was viewed in a largely positive light. In efforts to continue improving SNAP, particularly in light of its relevance during and post-coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, policymakers must be aware of rural families’ perceptions of SNAP. Specific improvements may include increased transparency regarding funding formulas, budgeting and nutrition education for recipients, effective training to improve customer service, connections among social service agencies within a community, and increased availability of automation to streamline application processes.

In an effort to elucidate an aspirational vision for the food system and explore whether the characteristics of such a system inadvertently set unattainable standards for low-wealth rural communities, we applied discourse analysis to the following qualitative datasets: (1) interviews with food experts and advocates, (2) scholarly and grey literature, (3) industry websites, and (4) email exchanges between food advocates. The analysis revealed eight aspirational food system discourses: production, distribution, and infrastructure; healthy, organic, local food; behavioral health and education; sustainability; finance and investment; hunger relief; demand-side preferences; romanticized, community led transformations. Study findings reveal that of eight discourses, only three encompass the experiences of low-wealth rural residents. This aspirational food system may aggravate the lack of autonomy and powerlessness already experienced by low-wealth rural groups, perpetuate a sense of failure by groups who will be unable to reach the aspirational food vision, silence discourses that might question those that play a role in the inequitable distribution of income while sanctioning discourses that focus on personal or community solutions, and leave out other policy-based solutions that address issues located within the food system. Further research might explore how to draw attention to silenced discourses on the needs and preferences of low-wealth rural populations to ensure that the policies and programs promoted by food system experts mitigate poor diets caused by food insecurity. Further research is needed to inform policies and programs to mitigate food insecurity in low-wealth rural populations.