African Americans are disproportionately aff ected by COVID-19-related disease and mortality due to long-standing social, political, economic, and environmental injustice; and COVID-19 inequities are exacerbated by institutional distrust. In the absence of trust, public health authorities have not adequately fulfi lled their professional and ethical obligations to protect African American communities from the negative eff ects of COVID-19. As institutional distrust is shaped by individual and collective experiences of untrustworthiness, we propose a paradigm shift from increasing trust among African Americans to increasing trustworthiness among medical and public health institutions/ systems throughout the United States. Th is narrative review extends the literature describing how social determinants contribute to COVID-19 inequities by demonstrating how institutional distrust develops over time and is reinforced through systems of injustice. Additionally, we illustrate consequences of institutional distrust for COVID-19 inequities and provide recommendations for building trustworthiness through ethical public health practice.

No abstract

No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background Surveys play a vital role in cancer research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of electronic surveys is crucial to improve understanding of the patient experience. However, response rates to electronic surveys are often lower compared with those of paper surveys. Objective The aim of this study was to determine the best approach to improve response rates for an electronic survey administered to patients at a cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We contacted 2750 patients seen at Moffitt Cancer Center in the prior 5 years via email to complete a survey regarding their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients randomly assigned to a series of variations of prenotifications (ie, postcard, letter) or incentives (ie, small gift, modest gift card). In total, eight combinations were evaluated. Qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the level of patient understanding and burden with the survey, and quantitative analysis was used to evaluate the response rates between conditions. Results A total of 262 (9.5%) patients completed the survey and 9 participated in a qualitative interview. Interviews revealed minimal barriers in understanding or burden, which resulted in minor survey design changes. Compared to sending an email only, sending a postcard or letter prior to the email improved response rates from 3.7% to 9.8%. Similarly, inclusion of an incentive significantly increased the response rate from 5.4% to 16.7%, especially among racial (3.0% to 12.2%) and ethnic (6.4% to 21.0%) minorities, as well as among patients with low socioeconomic status (3.1% to 14.9%). Conclusions Strategies to promote effective response rates include prenotification postcards or letters as well as monetary incentives. This work can inform future survey development to increase response rates for electronic surveys, particularly among hard-to-reach populations.