基于公平的评估公共卫生危机中监控相关危害的评分系统

Bita Amani, Breann McAndrew, Mienah Z Sharif, Jamie Garcia, Ezinne M. Nwankwo, A. Cabral, Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Hamid Khan, Cindy Le, Monica L. Ponder, C. Ford
{"title":"基于公平的评估公共卫生危机中监控相关危害的评分系统","authors":"Bita Amani, Breann McAndrew, Mienah Z Sharif, Jamie Garcia, Ezinne M. Nwankwo, A. Cabral, Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Hamid Khan, Cindy Le, Monica L. Ponder, C. Ford","doi":"10.18865/2022-2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n 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.\n \n \n \n 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.\n \n \n \n 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).\n \n \n \n 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.\n","PeriodicalId":315728,"journal":{"name":"Ethnicity and Disease","volume":"29 46","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Equity-Based Scoring System for Evaluating Surveillance-Related Harm in Public Health Crises\",\"authors\":\"Bita Amani, Breann McAndrew, Mienah Z Sharif, Jamie Garcia, Ezinne M. Nwankwo, A. Cabral, Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Hamid Khan, Cindy Le, Monica L. Ponder, C. Ford\",\"doi\":\"10.18865/2022-2022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n 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.\\n \\n \\n \\n 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.\\n \\n \\n \\n 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).\\n \\n \\n \\n 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.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":315728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethnicity and Disease\",\"volume\":\"29 46\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethnicity and Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18865/2022-2022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnicity and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18865/2022-2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

虽然用于减轻灾害的监测系统具有基本的公共卫生功能,但由于历史上和加强的监测,有色人种社区遭受了不成比例的伤害(例如,定罪)。为了解决这一问题,我们开发并试行了一种新颖的、基于公平的评分系统,以评估监控系统对社区的潜在和实际不利影响风险,这些社区由于受到警务、拘留/监禁、驱逐出境和中断获得社会服务或公共资源的机会而变得脆弱。为了开发评分系统,我们回顾了文献并调查了一个关于监视的专家小组,以确定通过监视方法产生的具体危害(例如,增加警务)。得分基于收集的信息类型(个人和/或社区级别)以及与执法部门共享信息的证据。得分为0(未发现危害风险),1(潜在风险),2(风险证据)和U(数据不可公开获取)。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 (n=21)、行为和健康相关服务(n=11)以及种族主义和种族主义相关因素(n=12)直接相关的系统进行环境扫描,确定了44个监测系统。91% (n=40)的系统评分为0-2分;9%的人得分为U;30% (n=13)得分为0。一半的人得到1分(n=22),表示“本分析中关注的潜在危害类型”。得分为2分的“危害证据”占12% (n=5)。监测系统对种族化和/或弱势群体的健康和福祉的潜在危害尚未得到充分研究。该项目开发并试点了一个评分系统,以实现这一基于股权的当务之急。改善所有人健康的公共卫生的崇高追求必须与这些潜在危害协调一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Equity-Based Scoring System for Evaluating Surveillance-Related Harm in Public Health Crises
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. 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. 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). 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信