Background According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, women comprise 26% of full professors and 19% of medical school department chairs. African American and Latino faculty comprise 4.6% of full professors and 6.9% of department chairs. Objective Because of the lack of representation of women and racial/ethnic minority faculty at the highest levels of academic medicine, this study examines the perceptions of barriers to advancement by men and women academic medical school faculty of differing races and ethnicities to explore potential differences in perceptions by demographic group. Design Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted between July and September 2017. Participants In order to give all faculty a chance to participate, faculty of all ranks and specialties were recruited from one southeastern medical school to participate in the study. Approach Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by 3 members of the research team using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. Participants were organized into 4 groups for analysis-underrepresented in medicine (URiM) women, majority women, URiM men, majority men. Key Results Sixty-four faculty consented to participate in the study (56.2% women, 34.4% URiM). Subthemes were grouped under three main themes: Perceptions of Barriers to Advancement of Women Faculty, Perceptions of Barriers to Advancement of African American and Latino Faculty, and Perceptions of the Institutional Climate for Diversity. Majority men tended to voice distinctly different perspectives than the other three demographic groups, with the most notable differences between majority men and URiM women. Majority men tended to suggest that the advancement of women and URiM faculty was acceptable or getting better, the lack of URiM faculty in leadership was due mainly to pipeline issues, and women choose not to advance to leadership positions. Conclusion We found that participant gender and race/ethnicity shaped perspectives of medical school faculty advancement in distinct ways.

Objective The World Health Organization recommends disclosing HIV-status between 6 and 12 years; American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children are informed at “school age.” Neither suggests an optimal age when children should learn of their status to improve viral load suppression. Considering that virally suppressed people do not transmit HIV and that interrupting the transmission cycle is critical to ending the HIV epidemic, our objective is to examine the relationship between age of disclosure and viral load suppression by evaluating data from a pediatric HIV clinic in the southern United States. Records from perinatal infected patients seen between 2008 and 2018 were analyzed (N = 61). Results Longitudinal suppression was low across all groups when benchmarked against the UNAIDS 90% global target; black patients were less likely to achieve suppression compared to white patients (41% vs. 75%, p = 0.04). Adopted children were more likely to achieve suppression than children living with biological family (71% vs. 44%, p < 0.05). Children who learned of their status between 10 and 12 had the highest rate of suppression (65%) compared to peers who learned of their status younger (56%) or older (38%). Our preliminary study is designed to spark research on refining the current recommendations on HIV-status disclosure to perinatal infected children.

HIV-positive people are at increased risk for malignancies associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, including oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). The purpose of this study was to determine whether cancer treatment disparities exist between HIV-positive and HIV-negative people with OPSCC. We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing OPSCC treatment adequacy and treatment outcomes in HIV-positive and HIV-negative people in the post-antiretroviral therapy era. Treatment adequacy was determined by measuring two primary endpoints associated with OPSCC survival: time to therapy and total radiation dose. Treatment outcomes were assessed by measuring disease-free and overall survival. We identified a total of 37 HIV-positive and 149 HIV-negative people with OPSCC. HIV-positive people experienced a median delay of 10 days from time of OPSCC diagnosis to start of therapy compared with HIV-negative people [hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.98]. Total post-radiation dose in HIV-positive people was lower than that in HIV-negative people [58.5 Gray (Gy) versus 64.4 Gy, p = .04]. HIV-positive people also experienced greater hazards for disease recurrence (HR 3.43, 95% CI 1.39-8.46) and death (HR 4.21, 95% CI 1.29-13.80) compared with HIV-negative people. In conclusion, we detected a clinically important delay in time to therapy as well as worse disease-free and overall survival in HIV-positive people with OPSCC compared with their HIV-negative counterparts. These findings are relevant to understanding how HIV-positive people are diagnosed and undergo therapy for HPV-associated malignancies and highlight the need to address cancer treatment disparities in this group.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this article is to describe the background and experience of the Academic-Community Engagement (ACE) Core of the Mid-South Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for Health Disparities Research (Mid-South TCC) in impacting the social determinants of health through the establishment and implementation of a regional academic-community partnership.Conceptual FrameworkThe Mid-South TCC is informed by three strands of research: the social determinants of health, the socioecological model, and community-based participatory research (CBPR). Combined, these elements represent a science of engagement that has allowed us to use CBPR principles at a regional level to address the social determinants of health disparities.ResultsThe ACE Core established state coalitions in each of our founding states-Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi-and an Expansion Coalition in Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The ACE Core funded and supported a diversity of 15 community engaged projects at each level of the socioecological model in our six partner states through our community coalitions.ConclusionThrough our cross-discipline, cross-regional infrastructure developed strategically over time, and led by the ACE Core, the Mid-South TCC has established an extensive infrastructure for accomplishing our overarching goal of investigating the social, economic, cultural, and environmental factors driving and sustaining health disparities in obesity and chronic illnesses, and developing and implementing interventions to ameliorate such disparities.

Objective This article describes Mayors Mentoring Mayors (3M), an initiative of the Arkansas Coalition for Obesity Prevention (ArCOP), which expanded to five states to become the signature community initiative of the Mid-South Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center (Mid-South TCC) for Health Disparities Research. Methods The 3M program is an extension of the Growing Healthy Communities (GHC) program, which sought to build capacity within communities to reduce obesity by implementing policy, system and environmental (PSE) changes that support healthy living. GHC where the mayor was involved had the most significant changes toward better health. These mayors were recruited to share their successes, lessons learned, and best practices with their colleagues through a series of Lunch & Learns. Following the GHC and 3M models, a multi-state approach to expand 3M to five additional states was developed. ArCOP partnered with the Mid-South TCC to recruit mayors in the five states. Results Five Lunch & Learn events were held across Arkansas between March and May 2015, with a total of 98 participants (40 mayors, 37 community leaders, 21 guests). Each regional Lunch & Learn had 1-2 host mayor(s) in attendance, with a total of 9 host mayors. For the 3M regional expansion project, eight GHC Recognition Applications from five states were submitted. Five communities, designated as Emerging, were funded to implement GHC projects. Conclusion ArCOP successfully engaged mayors, elected officials, and stakeholders who can influence policy across Arkansas as well as in an additional five states in the Mid-South TCC region to implement obesity PSE prevention strategies.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this article is to describe the process of conducting an assessment of neighborhood perceptions and cohesion by a community coalition-academic team created in the context of community-based participatory research (CBPR), to guide the design of locally relevant health initiatives.MethodsGuided by CBPR principles, a collaborative partnership was established between an academic center and a local, urban, underserved neighborhood in Birmingham, Alabama to identify and address community concerns and priorities. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in September 2016 among community residents (N=90) to examine perceptions of neighborhood characteristics, including social cohesion and neighborhood problems.ResultsThe major concerns voiced by the coalition were violence and lack of neighborhood cohesion and safety. The community survey verified the concerns of the coalition, with the majority of participants mentioning increasing safety and stopping the violence as the things to change about the community and the greatest hope for the community. Furthermore, results indicated residents had a moderate level of perceived social cohesion (mean = 2.87 [.67]).ConclusionsThe Mid-South TCC Academic and Community Engagement (ACE) Core successfully partnered with community members and stakeholders to establish a coalition whose concerns and vision for the community matched the concerns of residents of the community. Collecting data from different groups strengthened the interpretation of the findings and allowed for a rich understanding of neighborhood concerns.