We use a socioecological model of health to define resilience, review the definition and study of resilience among persons living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) in the existing peer-reviewed literature, and discuss the strengths and limitations of how resilience is defined and studied in HIV research. We conducted a review of resilience research for HIV-related behaviors/outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, clinic attendance, CD4 cell count, viral load, viral suppression, and/or immune functioning among PLWH. We performed searches using PubMed, PsycINFO and Google Scholar databases. The initial search generated 14,296 articles across the three databases, but based on our screening of these articles and inclusion criteria, n = 54 articles were included for review. The majority of HIV resilience research defines resilience only at the individual (i.e., psychological) level or studies individual and limited interpersonal resilience (e.g., social support). Furthermore, the preponderance of HIV resilience research uses general measures of resilience; these measures have not been developed with or tailored to the needs of PLWH. Our review suggests that a socioecological model of health approach can more fully represent the construct of resilience. Furthermore, measures specific to PLWH that capture individual, interpersonal, and neighborhood resilience are needed. ARTICLE HISTORY

Both subjective and objectively measured social status has been associated with multiple health outcomes, including weight status, but the mechanism for this relationship remains unclear. Experimental studies may help identify the causal mechanisms underlying low social standing as a pathway for obesity. Our objective was to investigate the effects of experimentally manipulated social status on ad libitum acute dietary intakes and stress-related outcomes as potential mechanisms relating social status and weight. This was a pilot feasibility, randomized, crossover study in Hispanic young adults (n=9; age 19–25; 67% female; BMI ≥18.5 and ≤30 kg/m2). At visit 1, participants consumed a standardized breakfast and were randomized to a high social status position (HIGH) or low social status position (LOW) in a rigged game of Monopoly™. The rules for the game differed substantially in terms of degree of ‘privilege’ depending on randomization to HIGH or LOW. Following Monopoly™, participants were given an ad libitum buffet meal and energy intakes (kcal) were estimated by pre- and post-weighing foods consumed. Stress-related markers were measured at baseline, after the game of Monopoly™, and after lunch. Visit 2 used the same standardized protocol; however, participants were exposed to the opposite social status condition. When compared to HIGH, participants in LOW consumed 130 more calories (p=0.07) and a significantly higher proportion of their daily calorie needs in the ad libitum buffet meal (39% in LOW versus 31% in HIGH; p=0.04). In LOW, participants reported decreased feelings of pride and powerfulness following Monopoly™ (p=0.05) and after their lunch meal (p=0.08). Relative to HIGH, participants in LOW demonstrated higher heart rates following Monopoly™ (p=0.06), but this relationship was not significant once lunch was consumed (p=0.31). Our pilot data suggest a possible causal relationship between experimentally manipulated low social status and increased acute energy intakes in Hispanic young adults, potentially influenced by decreased feelings of pride and powerfulness. Increased energy intake over time, resulting in positive energy balance, could contribute to increased risk for obesity, which could partially explain the observed relationship between low social standing and higher weight. Larger and longitudinal studies in a diverse sample need to be conducted to confirm findings, increase generalizability, and assess whether this relationship persists over time.

The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global public health crisis since the 1918 influenza outbreak. As of early June, the novel coronavirus has infected more than 6.3 million people worldwide and more than 1.9 million in the United States (US). The total number of recorded deaths due to COVID-19 are growing at an alarming rate globally (³383,000) and nationally (³109,000) Evidence is mounting regarding the heavier burden of COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality on the underserved populations in the US. This commentary focuses on this global health pandemic and how mitigation of the virus relies heavily on health behavior change to slow its spread, highlighting how the pandemic specifically affects the most socially and economically disadvantaged populations in the US. The commentary also offers short, intermediate and long-term research and policy focused recommendations. Both the research and policy recommendations included in this commentary emphasize equity-driven: (1) research practices, including applying a social determinants and health equity lens on monitoring, evaluation, and clinical trials activities on COVID-19; and (2) policy actions, such as dedicating resources to prioritize high-risk communities for testing, treatment, and prevention approaches and implementing organizational, institutional, and legislative policies that address the social and economic barriers to overall well-being that these populations face during a pandemic. It is our hope that these recommendations will generate momentum in delivering timely, effective, and lifesaving changes.