Around half of the population of Suriname, who are mainly of African and South Asian descent, migrated to the Netherlands at the end of the previous century, where they face higher perinatal and maternal mortality and up to 5 years lower life expectancy than European-Dutch. Analyses by ancestry are needed to address these inequalities, but the law prohibits registration by ancestry. Therefore, a list of Surinamese surnames was compiled and validated to identify the largest groups, African-Surinamese or South Asian-Surinamese ancestry in health research. A complete database of Surinamese surnames was provided by the National Population Registry of Suriname. Surname recognition by researchers of Surinamese ancestry was used. Disagreement was resolved using historical registers and through discussion. The list was further validated against contemporary lists of Surinamese surnames with self-defined ancestry, obtained during population and clinical studies in Suriname and the Netherlands. All 71,529 Surinamese surnames were encoded, as African-Surinamese (34%), South Asian-Surinamese (18%), Brazilian or other Iberian (17%), Indonesian-Surinamese (13%), Chinese-Surinamese (5%), First Nation (2%), and other (10%). Compared to self-defined ancestry, South Asian-Surinamese surname coding had 100% sensitivity, 99.8% specificity, and 99.9% accuracy. For African-Surinamese, who may have Dutch surnames, these values depended on geocoding. With a known Surinamese origin, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were, respectively, 97.3%, 100%, and 98.6%, but without this information, there was interference of African-Surinamese with European-Dutch surnames in the Dutch validation sample. In conclusion, the Surinamese Surname List has a high accuracy in identifying persons of Surinamese ancestry. This quick, inexpensive, and nonintrusive method, which is unaffected by response bias, might be a valuable tool in public health research to help address the profound health disparities by ancestry.

This article traces the development and growth of health justice partnerships (HJPs) in three countries: the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Extensive health inequities exist for persons with criminal-legal involvement in the USA. Researchers, both novice and experienced, are critical in documenting these inequities and implementing programs that address the many health and social problems of this population. However, working with currently or formerly incarcerated persons brings new challenges to researchers that may have not been previously considered as necessary. Because incarcerated persons were systemically exploited by biomedical researchers until reform following the Civil Rights Movement, resulting in their designation as a vulnerable population in the Code of Federal Regulations, enhanced protections are necessary in implementing contemporary research involving incarcerated persons. These enhanced protections can delay or prolong the regulatory approval process, particularly to the novice carceral system researcher, which may discourage some from engaging with this important population. Drawing on the many years of experience working with incarcerated persons accumulated by the Sexual Health Empowerment (S)HE Team at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC), this article offers some concrete steps toward getting started in this work.

A crucial reckoning was initiated when the COVID-19 pandemic began to expose and intensify long-standing racial/ethnic health inequities, all while various sectors of society pursued racial justice reform. As a result, there has been a contextual shift towards broader recognition of systemic racism, and not race, as the shared foundational driver of both societal maladies. This confluence of issues is of particular relevance to Black populations disproportionately affected by the pandemic and racial injustice. In response, institutions have initiated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts as a way forward. This article considers how the dual pandemic climate of COVID-19-related health inequities and the racial justice movement could exacerbate the “time and effort tax” on Black faculty to engage in DEI efforts in academia and biomedicine. We discuss the impact of this “tax” on career advancement and well-being, and introduce an operational framework for considering the interconnected influence of systemic racism, the dual pandemics, and DEI work on the experience of Black faculty. If not meaningfully addressed, the “time and effort tax” could contribute to Black and other underrepresented minority faculty leaving academia and biomedicine – consequently, the very diversity, equity, and inclusion work meant to increase representation could decrease it.

This article examines the unique disadvantages experienced by Black people and other people of color with substance use disorder in health care, and argues that an intersectional approach to enforcing disability rights laws offer an opportunity to ameliorate some of the harms of oppression to this population.

Jurisdictions around the world have articulated the need for the development of an integrated health care system with an increased emphasis on primary health care that incorporates the principles/practices of health promotion. Over the past century, the medical model has been the default model of care in many countries, and yet treatment alone is unlikely to have marked effects on health inequities or health status. This article presents and discusses three fundamental dimensions (strategies, processes and outcomes) of health promotion in primary health care (HP in PHC) settings. We argue that the three dimensions are founded on the values and structures of health promotion (Frankish et al., 2006). Our work is based on a comprehensive literature review, validation by key informants and a national survey of Canadian primary health care settings. We suggest that the strategies (types of interventions), processes (client and community centred care), and desired health promotion outcomes (intended or unintended results) need to be better articulated and understood. Identification and discussion of the domains of HP in PHC settings is a crucial first step. It is a step toward the subsequent identification of related indicators and measures of health promotion that can be used for planning, implementation and evaluation of important health promotion initiatives.

Jurisdictions around the world have articulated a need for development of an integrated health care system with increased emphasis on primary health care and incorporation of the principles and practices of health promotion. To date, the medical model has been the default model of care. Yet, treatment alone is unlikely to have marked effects on health inequities or health status. This article presents and discusses two foundational dimensions (values, structures) of a health promotion philosophy and approach in primary health care settings. We propose a strategy and framework to support practical and attainable action. Our article (the first of a series of two) is based on a literature review, validation by key experts and a national survey of Canadian primary health care settings. We argue that fundamental philosophical values provide a foundation for health promotion in primary health care. These values should be reflected in the structures that create a supportive environment for health promotion. Our remaining three domains (strategies, processes, outcomes) are presented in a second following article. Based on values and structures, we conclude that subsequent strategies (interventions), processes (client- and community-centred care), and desired health promotion outcomes (intended or unintended) may be achieved.