Part 1:
1. Choose a paper describing the development or validation of a measure of relevance in health disparities research (please give the full citation and/or upload the paper if that's possible).
https://escholarship.org/content/qt9354z5hd/qt9354z5hd.pdf
"Smoking Policy Change Within Permanent Supportive Housing"
2. What was the definition of the construct?
Smoke-free policies effectively reduce secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure among non-smokers, and
reduce consumption, encourage quit attempts, and minimize relapse to smoking among smokers. Such policies
are uncommon in permanent supportive housing (PSH)
for formerly homeless individuals. In this study, we collaborated with a PSH provider in San Diego, California to
assess a smoke-free policy that restricted indoor smoking.
3. How did the authors provide evidence on the validity of the measure? Could you think of additional approaches to validating the measure?
Between August and November 2015, residents completed
a pre-policy questionnaire on attitudes toward smoke-free
policies and exposure to secondhand smoke, and then 7–9
months after policy implementation residents were re-surveyed. At follow-up, there was a 59.7% reduction in indoor
smoking. Prior to
implementation of the policy, residents were provided with
information on local smoking cessation resources.
Seven to nine-months after implementation of the smoke-free policy, eligible residents completed the same questionnaire. Residents were encouraged but not required to
complete both (pre- and post-policy) questionnaires.
4. How did the authors provide evidence on the reliability of the measure? Could you think of additional approaches to evaluating the reliability of the measure?
In
order to compare participants’ responses before and after the
policy was implemented, authors calculated percent changes and
95% confidence intervals. Authors calculated percent changes
using generalized linear models with robust standard errors,
which accounted for correlation of responses among the
individuals who completed both survey rounds. They reported
percent differences in smoking behaviors, SHS exposure,
and attitudes toward the policy between the pre- and postpolicy samples.
5. Describe the implications of a lack of measurement validity or reliability for future research applications.
Lack of measurement validity and reliability serve as issues when measuring aspects of personal experience because of the diversity in populations and their individual experiences. While validating measures is helpful for other researchers to understand the feasibility and effectiveness of research applications, it may be difficult to apply a one-dimensional model to different communities. Validating one study does not enable the research model to be automatically applied to another community or population as the model is highly contingent upon the variables impacting the community.
Part 2:
1. Find a paper describing a health disparity (please give the full citation or, even better, upload the paper so everyone else can look at it too)
Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Response to Incentives for Quitline Engagement
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30454673
2. Summarize the construct and measurement of the dimension of disparity (e.g., racial inequalities?, SES inequalities?) and the outcome measured (e.g., self-rated health).
This study examines the differences in the response to incentives and outreach on engagement with Helpline services among racial/ethnic groups within the Medi-Cal population were examined. Certain racial and ethnic minorities have lower utilization of tobacco cessation services, such as Helpline counseling and cessation medications. The goal of the California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) Incentives to Quit Smoking Program was to facilitate successful cessation by promoting modest financial and cessation medication–related incentives to increase engagement with the California Smokers’ Helpline counseling services.
3. What is the evidence for the validity and reliability of the measures?
The Medi-Cal Incentives to Quit Smoking team conducted statewide and community-based outreach and facilitated direct-to-member all-household mailings about the Medi-Cal Incentives to Quit Smoking program to engage with Medi-Cal callers and promote Helpline services between March 2012 and July 2015. It appears that there is no specific evidence for the use of this measure. The paper utilizes national level data to understand the differences in responses to incentives and cessation programs by different racial/ethnic groups.
4. What is the reference category used for the disparity measure (ie, who is the comparison group)? Why does this reference category make sense (or not) for this research question?
The reference category is white individuals from the same SES/background, being compared to African-Americans and English speaking Latinx. It was found that these two minority groups had higher engagement with the financial incentive than whites (African American APR=1.66, 95% CI=1.59, 1.73, English-speaking Latinx APR=1.29, 95% CI=1.22, 1.36). Spanish-speaking Latinx had lower initial engagement with the financial incentive (APR=0.75, 95% CI=0.66, 0.85)
5. How is the disparity quantified or measured? Is this an absolute or relative measure or are both provided? Describe which type of measure you would prefer for this research area, or, if both, why.
The promotion of modest financial and cessation medication incentives through multiple outreach channels increased callers’ engagement with the Helpline and appeared to promote ethnic and linguistic equity with respect to the receipt of counseling and nicotine replacement therapy. Targeted community-based outreach may resonate particularly for African Americans, and language-concordant Medi-Cal insurance plan mailings may have reached newly covered Spanish-speaking Latinx.