Collaborating to Leverage American Heart Association's EmPOWERED to Serve Faith‐Based Networks for Methamphetamine and Stimulant Misuse Educational Campaign in Black and Hispanic Churches
Publication: Psychiatric Research and Clinical Practice
Abstract
Objective
In recent years, Black and Hispanic communities have been disproportionately impacted by growth in stimulant use disorders and overdose‐related mortality. Faith‐based institutions serve an important role in communities, and thus, community‐based interventions to enhance psychoeducation and reduce stigma are a promising area. The American Heart Association EmPOWERED to Serve program has developed health lessons through community‐based collaborations, including a video regarding stimulant use.
Methods
In collaboration with church partners, program staff and collaborators developed and implemented a 10‐min video in 12 church communities across several US states and in Puerto Rico. Implementation methods included virtual, hybrid, and in‐person forums. Six churches participated in a pre‐ and post‐video survey to assess effectiveness of the stimulant use disorder video for modifying attitudes toward substance use and for instilling knowledge about stimulant use disorders. Survey data (N = 478) were analyzed in SPSS utilizing Wilcoxon signed ranks for Likert scale responses or McNemar's tests for dichotomous data.
Results
Data suggested improvement in compassion for people with substance use and knowledge regarding stimulant use disorders. By contrast, sense of comfort in talking to loved ones with substance use and beliefs about substance use being a medical illness did not change following the video.
Conclusions
This work suggests that a brief 10‐min educational video lesson implemented by a trusted community leader is feasible and effective for reducing stigma and enhancing knowledge about substance use. Further research is required to design additional interventions and to assess for longitudinal effects.
Highlights
•
The EmPOWERED to Serve team engaged in collaborative development of a brief psychoeducational video intervention regarding stimulant misuse and use disorders with leaders of faith‐based institutions serving Black and Hispanic communities.
•
Implementation of the video intervention was shown to be feasible and acceptable, with church partners disseminating the video to over 18,000 individuals within their communities.
•
According to surveys completed by congregants, pre‐ vs. post‐video viewing, the video was associated with enhanced compassion and increased knowledge amongst participants.
The rise of synthetic opioids, such as oxycodone and fentanyl, has precipitated increases in overdose‐related deaths, and this concerning trend is not solely due to the opioid crisis (1, 2). Concomitantly, the rise in methamphetamine use, its co‐use with opioids, and lethal adulteration with fentanyl have had deleterious consequences (3, 4). While fatal overdose rates fell in Non‐Hispanic White individuals, overdose‐related mortality rates increased in Hispanic and Non‐Hispanic Black male‐identifying individuals. Treatment is also less accessible, with individuals in Non‐Hispanic Black communities accessing care for mental health or substance use disorders at one‐half to one‐third the rate of Non‐Hispanic White individuals (5, 6). Barriers include: (1) psychoeducational gaps; (2) structural racism; (3) dearth of culturally competent care; (4) less comfort with seeking treatment due to historical harms perpetrated in medical settings; (5) greater exposure to social determinants of health; and (6) living in underresourced settings (7, 8, 9).
To address these barriers, community‐based engagement is being utilized to reduce inequities via health education, access to services (i.e.,—COVID vaccinations and testing), and providing culturally competent care (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). Churches have a strong history of psychological and social support for people living in communities of color, and leaders occupy a position of trust and confidence (17). In addition to medical illness, community‐based programs have addressed mental health concerns including depressive and substance use disorders (15). The development of interventions is critical in order to address barriers to accessing care for mental health and substance use disorders for individuals in communities of color (18). Addressing these issues may include customized interventions which are designed in collaboration with community members and delivered in the context of the community (19).
When considering interventions for increasing compassion and enhancing knowledge surrounding stimulant‐use disorders, video‐based interventions are a promising option. People with substance use experience anticipated negative responses from family members, the perception of seeking healthcare as a weakness, discrimination, and (for parents) fears of being reported to child protective services (20, 21, 22, 23). Video interventions have been shown to increase health literacy amongst African‐American communities, increase community engagement and trust in the healthcare system (24, 25), and are lower‐cost and more easily disseminated compared to other interventions (26, 27).
The American Heart Association (AHA)'s EmPOWERED to Serve (ETS) program seeks to dismantle structural racism within healthcare and to achieve health equity for all. This team has built relationships with church leaders in Black and Hispanic communities over several years, and has a collaborative process for co‐creation of online health lessons in accordance with community‐partnered participatory research including but not limited to: establishing memoranda of understanding with community leaders, compensation for church participation, conducting focus groups to revisit prior work and plan for future projects, engaging with community leaders about structural racism, circumventing barriers to intervention uptake, modifying dissemination strategies, and meeting needs not covered by current projects (28, 29, 30, 31). Topics include cardiovascular health, diabetes, nutrition, exercise, mental health, and substance use. These health lesson packages contain multimedia educational tools, intended to facilitate open and honest conversations amongst community members. Churches within communities of color hold an established role in economic development and civic advocacy. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a video intervention administered by community leaders to increase knowledge about substance use and compassion for individuals with substance use disorders, and to encourage action toward reducing stimulant misuse in communities. Following co‐creation of the videos and assessment questions as well as train‐the‐trainer sessions, faith‐based leaders presented this health lesson in their own communities. This aspect of the implementation strategy becomes very important as we engage in discussions on health‐related topics which are sensitive and thus difficult to discuss. We hope that this psychoeducational video available free‐of‐charge will provide additional groups with the necessary information to seek out high‐quality mental healthcare, in addition to providing basic care for those around them. We further hope that our data encourage other organizations to perform similarly low‐cost, high‐yield interventions to assist communities of color during this substance use crisis.
METHODS
Theoretical Framework
As mentioned previously, our work is guided by a community‐based participatory research framework. We also employed interpersonal contact theory in including a pastor with lived experience with substance misuse in the video intervention. The pastor had served a similar faith‐based community to those of our partners. Interpersonal contact theory suggests that exposure to individuals with problems that are stigmatized may reduce stigma, and this framework has been extraordinarily useful in prior work to reduce HIV‐related stigma in faith‐based communities (32, 33).
Congregation‐Level Participation
The ETS Program at the AHA, has formed partnerships over several years with multiple faith‐based institutions serving Black and Hispanic communities. During this project, the team had connected with 12 churches (located in California, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin) serving Black and Hispanic communities. Content was designed by a team at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the ETS group at AHA in collaboration with church partners, funded via a subaward from a SAMSHA grant via the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry and the Opioid Response Network. Twelve churches participated in design, feedback process, and dissemination of this health lesson on stimulant use disorders, with six participating in the pre‐ and post‐questions.
To discuss the needs of congregations with respect to substance use psychoeducational materials, the AHA hosted a set of five focus groups, with 11 church partners opting to co‐lead the groups with AHA staff. Fifty individuals attended across the focus groups. During the focus groups, our team engaged with leaders to identify important topics for health lesson videos (as has been the practice in developing other health lesson videos in the context of our multi‐year partnerships with the churches and their leaders). The health lesson content and assessment questions were created based on community feedback from prior health lessons and in collaboration with church leaders. Train‐the‐trainer sessions were conducted with ETS staff and community leaders. During the focus groups and Zoom meetings throughout the year, the team discussed question content, incorporating partner feedback on question content as well as the number and type of questions that church leaders felt were appropriate for their communities. We also discussed the history of research in communities of color, soliciting feedback from church partners about how we offer the opportunity to participate in the assessment of the educational intervention in a way that would be congruent with church community culture and practices. To specifically test the effect of this customized video, questions were developed internally (as in prior studies (13, 34)) with congregation leadership utilizing a Likert scale or multiple‐choice format to minimize study burden for congregants. Additionally, although the program initially had intended to only use an electronic survey, after careful discussion with church leaders regarding potential barriers to participation, we also utilized paper surveys with lock boxes (similar in appearance to ballot boxes). This format enabled more individuals to respond to the surveys and was culturally acceptable to communities. Importantly, though focus groups had been consistently part of the team process, this was the first time that a more formal assessment was implemented.
Train‐the‐trainer sessions were conducted with ETS staff to orient leaders to health lesson modules, and to answer questions prior to them conducting local events within their communities (lesson plans are available here). Congregational leaders were able to present the video program (accessible here) in their preferred format (i.e.,—virtual vs. in‐person) to their congregants. Due to ongoing COVID‐19 related restrictions as well as to offer more options to reach congregants, churches did a combination of virtual, in‐person, and hybrid presentations. Churches implemented the trainings during Sunday School, within church services, during family game nights, in the context of food bank events, or during in‐person or virtual workshops. Overall, church leaders found multiple ways to disseminate and to implement the materials beyond formalized settings, including on social media, display via church websites, as well as one church creating a live faith‐based play regarding substance use, and training actors using the materials to give them insight into the issues that people with substance misuse face.
Congregant‐Level Participation
During an event, congregations presented the opportunity for congregants 18 years of age or older to participate in the de‐identified pre‐/post‐video survey either via REDCap HIPAA‐compliant web‐based data collection platform (35) or via paper surveys, which were preferred by most congregants. Five identical pre‐ and post‐questions, along with self‐reported demographic questions, were posed to participants as well as a sixth item during the post‐survey (see below) which invited congregants to share anything else with the ETS team regarding their thoughts and feelings about the video. Participants completed the pre‐video questions, followed by viewing the psychoeducational video, and immediately afterward they completed the post‐video questions. Three questions (#1–3) were attitudinal, and two (#4–5) were knowledge‐based.
1.
It is hard to have compassion for people using substances. (pre‐post)
2.
I feel comfortable talking to someone who may have a substance use disorder. (pre‐post)
3.
A substance use disorder is a medical illness. (pre‐post)
4.
Which chemical in the brain is most affected by stimulants? (pre‐post)
5.
What are some changes in the way someone looks or acts that may be related to stimulant or methamphetamine use? (pre‐post)
6.
Is there anything else you would like to share? (post‐survey only)
For the attitudinal questions, the anchors were as follows: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. For the knowledge‐based question number 4, there was one correct answer (dopamine). For the knowledge‐based question number 5, the question response was scored correct if individuals selected “all of the above,” which included all signs of methamphetamine use listed as answer options.
Data Entry and Analysis
The study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board with exempt status due to the de‐identified nature of the data. All surveys were completed on the day the video intervention was disseminated. Church leaders opted for a combined virtual REDCap web‐based platform (35) available through the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute and paper‐based implementation for pre‐ and post‐surveys, to allow congregants to experience more comfort with the survey format. For paper surveys, completed forms were placed in lock boxes and sent to the ETS team, with double data entry to ensure accuracy. Any discrepancies were reviewed and reconciled by the data processing team (B.B., K.H., A.C., A.K.O.).
Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics (version 28), specifying a significance level of p < 0.05, two‐tailed. Frequency and central tendency data were computed for self‐reported demographic data including age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, and the venues (congregation) where the person was exposed to the video intervention. For the pre‐ and post‐assessments, each Likert scale response item (#1–3) was compared post‐ versus pre‐video with Wilcoxon signed ranks tests and for the two knowledge questions (#4–5), proportions correct post‐ versus pre‐video were compared with McNemar's tests.
RESULTS
This stimulant use health lesson program was presented to a total of 18,193 individuals across the 12 congregations which participated in the dissemination of this content. Congregation participants ranged in size from 224 to 6325 individuals and half of these congregations participated in the surveys. Survey participation from the six churches included a convenience sample with a total of 73 electronic and 405 paper surveys, for a total 478 surveys in the final database. Completeness of data varied by question. Demographic and congregation (not identifiable) data are presented in Table 1. Age was fairly evenly distributed, with 28% between 18 and 30 years of age, 27% between 31 and 50 years of age, 36% between 51 and 70 years of age, and 10% >70 years old. The majority of the congregants who participated identified as Black or African American (91%), not Hispanic or Latino (82%), cis‐gender female (70%).
| N | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Agea | ||
| 18–30 years | 127 | 28 |
| 31–50 years | 124 | 27 |
| 51–70 years | 163 | 36 |
| Greater than 70 years | 45 | 10 |
| Congregationb | ||
| Church #1 | 102 | 22 |
| Church #2 | 91 | 20 |
| Church #3 | 105 | 23 |
| Church #4 | 124 | 27 |
| Other churches | 44 | 9 |
| Racec | ||
| Black or African American | 435 | 91 |
| American Indian and Alaska Native | 1 | 0.2 |
| Asian American | 3 | 0.6 |
| Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander | 1 | 0.2 |
| White or caucasian | 3 | 0.6 |
| Multiracial | 12 | 3 |
| Other | 1 | 0.2 |
| Would rather not say | 1 | 0.2 |
| Ethnicityd | ||
| Hispanic or Latino | 40 | 10 |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 329 | 82 |
| Would rather not say | 30 | 8 |
| Gender identitye | ||
| Female | 323 | 70 |
| Male | 135 | 29 |
| Transgender female | 2 | 0.004 |
| Transgender male | 0 | 0 |
| Non‐binary | 1 | 0.002 |
| Would rather not say | 3 | 1 |
a
N = 19 missing data.
b
N = 12 missing data.
c
N = 21 missing data.
d
N = 79 missing data.
e
N = 14 missing data.
As an additional note on participation, the 18,193 individuals count all “lives touched by the materials.” This statistic reflects all individuals with whom the videos were shared, regardless of whether videos were viewed in a group setting. Pre‐ and post‐video surveys were primarily administered in more formal presentation contexts in which videos were viewed communally and then surveys were administered.
Attitudinal Questions
With respect to the attitudinal questions (Table 2), for response item #1 (“It is hard to have compassion for people using substances.”), there was significant movement toward compassion post‐video (median) compared to pre‐video (median) (Figure 1A, Z = −4.64, p < 0.001 N = 420), with more people strongly disagreeing with this statement. For response item #2 (“I feel comfortable talking to someone who may have a substance use disorder.”) (Figure 1B, Z = −1.21, p = 0.23, N = 408) and response item #3 (“A substance use disorder is a medical illness.”) (Figure 1C, Z = −1.59, p = 0.11, N = 407), responses did not change significantly.
| Attitudinal questions | Pre‐video mean | Post‐video mean | Statisticsa |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question 1 | |||
| It is hard to have compassion for people using substances | 3.68 | 3.95 | Z = −4.64, p < 0.001, N = 420 |
| Question 2 | |||
| I feel comfortable talking to someone who may have a substance use disorder | 3.13 | 3.19 | Z = −1.21, p = 0.23, N = 408 |
| Question 3 | |||
| A substance use disorder is a medical illness | 3.25 | 3.16 | Z = −1.59, p = 0.11, N = 407 |
a
Statistically significant bolded.
Knowledge Questions
With respect to the knowledge questions (Table 3), for Question #4 (“Which chemical in the brain is most affected by stimulants?”), there were more correct responses post‐ versus pre‐video (Figure 2A, 90.2% vs. 57.9%, McNemar 2 = 101, p < 0.001, N = 366). For Question #5, (“What are some changes in the way someone looks or acts that may be related to stimulant or methamphetamine use?”), there were more correct responses post‐ versus pre‐video (Figure 2B, 92.5% vs. 61.9%, McNemar 2 = 109, p < 0.001, N = 415).
| Knowledge questions | Pre‐video % correct (N) | Post‐video % correct (N) | Statistics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question 4 | |||
| Which chemical in the brain is most affected by stimulants?a | 57.9% (212) | 90.2% (330) | 2 = 100.7, p < 0.001, N = 366 |
| Question 5 | |||
| What are some changes in the way someone looks or acts that may be related to stimulant or methamphetamine use?a | 61.9% (257) | 92.5% (384) | 2 = 109.5, p < 0.001, N = 415 |
a
Statistically significant bolded.
DISCUSSION
A facilitated 10‐min video psychoeducational intervention regarding stimulant use was implemented across the ETS/church partner network serving primarily Black communities. This stimulant use health lesson program was presented to a total of 18,193 individuals across the 12 congregations which participated in the dissemination of this content. Congregation participation ranged from 224 to 6325 individuals, and half of these congregations participated in the surveys. On average, congregants' level of self‐reported compassion for people using substances as well as correct responses to knowledge questions improved following the video. Other attitudinal questions including sense of comfort with talking about substance use or the belief that substance use disorders are medical illnesses did not change following the video.
With respect to the first attitudinal question, (“It is hard to have compassion for people using substances.”), self‐reported compassion for people with substance use disorders significantly shifted post‐video toward greater self‐reported compassion. The word “compassion” (com [with] and pati [to suffer]) has been defined in the psychology literature as “a feeling of concern for another person's suffering which is accompanied by the motivation to help” (36, 37). Compassion is related to but not synonymous with empathy; for instance, compassion has been suggested to be analogous to empathic concern, which describes the recognition of another person's pain or negative emotion and is a subcomponent of an empathic response (38). We considered using a validated measure to assess change in congregants' perceptions but instead chose to develop questions in collaboration with partners as a valuable team‐building experience. Furthermore, in so doing, we could keep the assessment minimally burdensome to responders. In fact, according to a recent scoping review of measures to assess empathy and compassion, compassion is a difficult construct to assess due to multiple factors including social desirability bias and other factors, and there are few appropriately validated measures (39). Compassion, however, is an important concept across multiple major religions, as well as within the medical field, and is associated with improved health outcomes (40, 41). It is possible that including a Pastor from the community who spoke about his own lived experiences with substance use prior to entering the recovery process may have contributed to this process. Further, modeling of compassion and non‐judgment in the video may help to increase comfort in the community with seeking care.
With respect to the knowledge questions, increases in rates of correct responses regarding neural mechanisms of substance use may help to reduce stigma (42). With respect to the second knowledge‐based question regarding recognition of signs and symptoms of stimulant use disorder, the increase in correct responses suggests that families and individuals may be empowered to recognize substance misuse or use disorders within their communities. Although knowledge alone is far from a panacea for stigma reduction, education regarding the biological underpinnings of mental health issues may play a role in reducing stigma, particularly when employed in conjunction with narrative approaches such as community members sharing their lived experiences as a Pastor did in this video (42).
By contrast, some of the question responses suggested that the video may not support change in certain aspects. For the second attitudinal item (“I feel comfortable talking to someone who may have a substance use disorder.”), there was no significant change in post‐video responses. These data are consistent with adult learning principles in that becoming comfortable talking about substance use with others is a skill, and would be unlikely to change with passive viewing of a video or watching a lecture, as has been learned in medical student education (43). It is possible that more active learning techniques such as “real plays” or role plays within small groups could be more impactful, such as those incorporated in the new set of health lessons being implemented currently, which cover additional new topics including responding to emergencies and engaging with family and friends who are experiencing substance use (available here). Furthermore, these skills may be more effectively taught with a longitudinal approach, as process‐based learning requires a series of educational experiences for individuals to achieve a sense of comfort in speaking with individuals with substance use disorders (43). Although we are not suggesting teaching medical interventions to laypeople, we nonetheless utilize adult learning principles to design psychoeducational interventions for communities. Lastly, it is possible that people who have watched a video and gained more knowledge and more compassion for people with substance use disorders may feel like these conversations are now higher‐stakes, and they may be more aware of what they might not fully understand with respect to helping to support behavioral change in their friends and loved ones living with substance use.
For the third attitudinal item, regarding whether substance use is a “medical illness,” there are a few reasons why the video may not have impacted responses to this statement. One explanation could be that the phrasing of the question was confusing, as people might think about substance use disorders (as well as other mental health conditions) as more of a psychological or potentially a spiritual challenge, which was suggested by free‐text responses written on the paper surveys by a few participants next to this question as well as by prior literature (44, 45, 46). The findings as they stand suggest that changes in belief (i.e.,—cognitive empathy or other cognitive processes) are more difficult to achieve in a one‐time intervention, and that significant change in people's beliefs about substance use may be more amenable to longitudinal approaches in communities where educational content and interactions are disseminated over time.
Limitations and Future Directions
Self‐report surveys are limited in certain ways including social desirability biases in addition to the assessment not being a proctored test. Further, we did not utilize validated instruments, but rather, developed this brief survey in collaboration with church partners, as this was the first time when such a formal assessment was performed, though focus groups have been consistently part of this program. In future we may consider the use of more extensive and validated scales to address longitudinal improvement in stigma about substance use (47). Further, despite Spanish translations of surveys being available, the majority of respondents identified as African American; thus, our results are more applicable to this population.
Given that compassion and knowledge were easier to change based on these data compared to individuals comfort with having conversations about substance use, in the new modules regarding substance use which are currently being implemented by the churches (available here), we incorporated experiential learning into our suite of health lessons with “real plays” and education about the spirit of motivational interviewing. These aspects of the newer training modules may better address the level of confidence in communicating with individuals about substance use concerns. Lastly, the change in self‐reported compassion following a relatively short video intervention underscores the importance of learning processes which are linked to affect, which would be important for development of future interventions. In some ways, the salience of learners' emotional experiences while they think about people living with substance use may help with the encoding of other important information, and may over time lead to additional inroads in terms of changes in both beliefs and behaviors related to substance use.
Our research suggests that presentation of a brief 10‐min educational video conducted by a trusted leader in the community, through the EmPOWERED to Serve network is feasible. Our results showed an increase in compassion and knowledge with this brief intervention. Further research would test mechanisms for engaging and empowering community members about substance use disorders.
REFERENCES
1.
Ciccarone D. The rise of illicit fentanyls, stimulants and the fourth wave of the opioid overdose crisis. Curr Opin Psychiatr. 2021;34(4):344–350. https://doi.org/10.1097/yco.0000000000000717
2.
Ellis MS, Kasper ZA, Cicero TJ. Twin epidemics: the surging rise of methamphetamine use in chronic opioid users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;193:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.08.029
3.
Kariisa M, Scholl L, Wilson N, Seth P, Hoots B. Drug overdose deaths involving cocaine and psychostimulants with abuse potential – United States, 2003–2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(17):388–395. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6817a3
4.
Jones CM, Olsen EO, O’Donnell J, Mustaquim D. Resurgent methamphetamine use at treatment admission in the United States, 2008–2017. Am J Publ Health. 2020;110(4):509–516. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.305527
5.
Han B, Cotto J, Etz K, Einstein EB, Compton WM, Volkow ND. Methamphetamine overdose deaths in the US by sex and race and ethnicity. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(5):564–567. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4321
6.
Han B, Compton WM, Jones CM, Einstein EB, Volkow ND. Methamphetamine use, methamphetamine use disorder, and associated overdose deaths among US adults. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(12):1329–1342. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2588
7.
Shiels MS, Freedman ND, Thomas D, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Trends in U.S. drug overdose deaths in non‐Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non‐Hispanic White persons, 2000–2015. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(6):453–455. https://doi.org/10.7326/m17-1812
8.
Connell CL, Wang SC, Crook L, Yadrick K. Barriers to healthcare seeking and provision among African American adults in the rural Mississippi delta region: community and provider perspectives. J Community Health. 2019;44(4):636–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-019-00620-1
9.
Mongelli F, Georgakopoulos P, Pato MT. Challenges and opportunities to meet the mental health needs of underserved and disenfranchised populations in the United States. Focus. 2020;18(1):16–24. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20190028
10.
Brown NR, Alick CL, Heaston AG, Monestime S, Powe N. The Black church and public health: a key partnership for theory driven COVID‐19 recovery efforts. J Prim Care Community Health. 2022;13:21501319221097672. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319221097672
11.
Berkley‐Patton J, Thompson CB, Templeton T, Burgin T, Derose KP, Williams E, et al. COVID‐19 testing in African American churches using a faith‐health‐academic partnership. Am J Publ Health. 2022;112(S9):S887–S891. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2022.306981
12.
Abdul‐Mutakabbir JC, Granillo C, Peteet B, Dubov A, Montgomery SB, Hutchinson J, et al. Rapid implementation of a community‐academic partnership model to promote COVID‐19 vaccine equity within racially and ethnically minoritized communities. Vaccines. 2022;10(8):1364. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10081364
13.
Gutierrez J, Devia C, Weiss L, Chantarat T, Ruddock C, Linnell J, et al. Health, community, and spirituality: evaluation of a multicultural faith‐based diabetes prevention program. Diabetes Educat. 2014;40(2):214–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721714521872
14.
Dalencour M, Wong EC, Tang L, Dixon E, Lucas‐Wright A, Wells K, et al. The role of faith‐based organizations in the depression care of African Americans and Hispanics in Los Angeles. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(4):368–374. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201500318
15.
Hankerson SH, Crayton LS, Duenas SC. Engaging African American clergy and community members to increase access to evidence‐based practices for depression. Psychiatr Serv. 2021;72(8):974–977. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900412
16.
Hughes M, Suhail‐Sindhu S, Namirembe S, Jordan A, Medlock M, Tookes HE, et al. The crucial role of Black, Latinx, and indigenous leadership in harm reduction and addiction treatment. Am J Publ Health. 2022;112(S2):S136–S139. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2022.306807
17.
Jordan A, Babuscio T, Nich C, Carroll KM. A feasibility study providing substance use treatment in the Black church. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2021;124:108218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108218
18.
Kazdin AE. Addressing the treatment gap: expanding the scalability and reach of treatment. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2023;91(1):3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000762
19.
Derose KP, Williams MV, Branch CA, Flórez KR, Hawes‐Dawson J, Mata MA, et al. A community‐partnered approach to developing church‐based interventions to reduce health disparities among African‐Americans and Latinos. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019;6(2):254–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-018-0520-z
20.
Smith JR, Workneh A, Yaya S. Barriers and facilitators to help‐seeking for individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder: a systematic review. J Trauma Stress. 2020;33(2):137–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22456
21.
Rusch N, Angermeyer MC, Corrigan PW. Mental illness stigma: concepts, consequences, and initiatives to reduce stigma. Eur Psychiatry. 2005;20(8):529–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2005.04.004
22.
Cohen S, Nielsen T, Chou JH, Hoeppner B, Koenigs KJ, Bernstein SN, et al. Disparities in maternal‐infant drug testing, social work assessment, and custody at 5 hospitals. Acad Pediatr. 2023;23(6):1268–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2023.01.012
23.
Peeler M, Gupta M, Melvin P, Bryant AS, Diop H, Iverson R, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in maternal and infant outcomes among opioid‐exposed mother‐infant dyads in Massachusetts (2017–2019). Am J Publ Health. 2020;110(12):1828–1836. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2020.305888
24.
Hirschey R, Bryant AL, Walker JS, Nolan TS. Systematic review of video education in underrepresented minority cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2020;43(4):259–268. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0000000000000829
25.
Broussard B, Radkins JB, Compton MT. Developing visually based, low‐literacy health education tools for African Americans with psychotic disorders and their families. Community Ment Health J. 2014;50(6):629–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-013-9666-7
26.
Amsalem D, Wall M, Lazarov A, Markowitz JC, Fisch CT, LeBeau M, et al. Brief video intervention to increase treatment‐seeking intention among U.S. health care workers: a randomized controlled trial. Psychiatr Serv. 2023;74(2):119–126. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20220083
27.
Amsalem D, Wall M, Lazarov A, Markowitz JC, Fisch CT, LeBeau M, et al. Destigmatising mental health treatment and increasing openness to seeking treatment: randomised controlled trial of brief video interventions. BJPsych Open. 2022;8(5):e169. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.575
28.
Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community‐participatory partnered research. JAMA. 2007;297(4):407–410. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.4.407
29.
Castillo EG, Ijadi‐Maghsoodi R, Shadravan S, Moore E, Mensah MO, III, Docherty M, et al. Community interventions to promote mental health and social equity. Focus. 2020;18(1):60–70. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.18102
30.
Siddiq H, Jones F, Magnes Z, Booker‐Vaughns J, Young‐Brinn A, Williams C, et al. Using community‐partnered participatory research to value the “community lens” and promote equity in community‐academic partnerships. Health Equity. 2023;7(1):543–554. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2023.0096
31.
Viswanathan M, R. United States. Agency for Healthcare, and Quality . Community‐based participatory research: assessing the evidence. Evidence report/technology assessment. Summary no. 99. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2004.
32.
Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. A meta‐analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90(5):751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
33.
Derose KP, Bogart LM, Kanouse DE, Felton A, Collins DO, Mata MA, et al. An intervention to reduce HIV‐related stigma in partnership with African American and Latino churches. AIDS Educ Prev. 2014;26(1):28–42. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2014.26.1.28
34.
Barrett NJ, Ingraham KL, Bethea K, Hwa‐Lin P, Chirinos M, Fish LJ, et al. Project PLACE: enhancing community and academic partnerships to describe and address health disparities. Adv Cancer Res. 2020;146:167–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acr.2020.01.009
35.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata‐driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42(2):377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
36.
Singer T, Klimecki OM. Empathy and compassion. Curr Biol. 2014;24(18):R875–R878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.054
37.
Erekson DM, Griner D, Beecher ME. Compassion focused therapy for groups: transdiagnostic treatment for turbulent times. Int J Group Psychother. 2024;74(2):149–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.2024.2314278
38.
Stevens F, Taber K. The neuroscience of empathy and compassion in pro‐social behavior. Neuropsychologia. 2021;159:107925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107925
39.
Vieten C, Rubanovich CK, Khatib L, Sprengel M, Tanega C, Polizzi C, et al. Measures of empathy and compassion: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2024;19(1):e0297099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297099
40.
Jahanbegloo R. Comparative approaches to compassion: understanding nonviolence in world religions and politics. New York, New York, USA: Bloomsbury Academic; 2022.
41.
Weingartner LA, Sawning S, Shaw MA, Klein JB. Compassion cultivation training promotes medical student wellness and enhanced clinical care. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1546-6
42.
Almeida OFX, Sousa N. Leveraging neuroscience to fight stigma around mental health. Front Behav Neurosci. 2021;15:812184. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.812184
43.
Norman MK, Lotrecchiano GR. Translating the learning sciences into practice: a primer for clinical and translational educators. J Clin Transl Sci. 2021;5(1):e173. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.840
44.
Young JL, Griffith EE, Williams DR. The integral role of pastoral counseling by African‐American clergy in community mental health. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54(5):688–692. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.54.5.688
45.
Wong EC, Derose KP, Litt P, Miles JNV. Sources of care for alcohol and other drug problems: the role of the African American church. J Relig Health. 2018;57(4):1200–1210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0412-2
46.
Walton‐Moss B, Ray EM, Woodruff K. Relationship of spirituality or religion to recovery from substance abuse: a systematic review. J Addict Nurs. 2013;24(4):217–226; quiz 227–228. https://doi.org/10.1097/jan.0000000000000001
47.
Docksey AE, Gray NS, Davies HB, Simkiss N, Snowden RJ. The Stigma and Self‐Stigma Scales for attitudes to mental health problems: psychometric properties and its relationship to mental health problems and absenteeism. Health Psychol Res. 2022;10(2):35630. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.35630
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 30 April 2024
Revision received: 31 December 2024
Accepted: 28 January 2025
Published online: 21 February 2025
Authors
Author Contributions
Aviva K. Olsavsky and Brianna Boggs contributed equally.
Author Contributions
On behalf of the American Heart Association's EmPOWERED to Serve Program and our University of Colorado partners, we would like to acknowledge the 12 faith‐based partner organizations that we were able to collaborate with to implement community trainings and distribute educational tools to address the stigma surrounding opioid and stimulant use. Thank you to the Ebenezer Family Worship Ministry, Empowering Believers Church of the Apostolic Faith, Fountain Grove African Methodist Episcopal Church, Glad Tiding, Kingdom Kare, Leading Ladies of Integrity, Mason Temple, New Hope Baptist Church, REHACE, St. Matthew Christian Church, the Center of Transformation, and the Temple of Restoration for your commitment in addressing substance use, as well as for allowing us to provide you with the tools and materials to share with your members and the community at large. By designing a program plan that would have the most impact and reaching over 18,000 people and maximizing their knowledge based on the unique needs in your community, you played a key role in driving outreach and educational plans which met the needs of your communites. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Moniqua Holton and Robin Cooper from the American Heart Association EmPOWERED to Serve team for their critical support of this project.
Author Contributions
The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this work. Dr. Olsavsky's spouse is employed by Thermo Fisher Scientific, and she receives funding support through the NIDA/AACAP K12 (K12DA000357—PI Gray, subawardee—Olsavsky). She is a consultant to the American Heart Association on a SAMSHA award (SAMSHA 1H79TI085588), which is also funded through the Opioid Response Network, and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry. Dr. Olsavsky receives support as a Consultant/study psychiatrist from three NIH grants: NIA R01AG079502—PI Hutchison, NIAAA R01AA029606—PI Hutchison, NIDA R01DA048069—PI Hutchison. Dr. Olsavsky is a consultant on a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA UK3MC50377). Dr. Sasson receives funding from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA 1H79TI085588), the Opioid Response Network, and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
Author Contributions
The data that support the findings of this study are not available due to institutional review board restrictions.
Funding Information
Opioid Response Network
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: K12DA000357(PI‐Gray,subawardee‐Olsavsky)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: 1HT179TI0855‐88
National Institute on Drug Abuse: K12DA000357(PI‐Gray,subawardee‐Olsavsky)
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing PsychiatryOnline@psych.org or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).