ArticleHealth equity2025
Development and Implementation of Informational Toolkits to Address Inequities in COVID-19 Testing.
Article in Health equity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected African American communities. Informational toolkits have emerged as a strategy to address such inequities. Community-driven approaches to toolkit design may enhance their relevance and impact in underserved communities. Methods: Using a human-centered design approach, we developed COVID-19 testing toolkits tailored to health care, faith-based, and public housing settings in rural and urban communities. A group of community stakeholders representing each setting was recruited to co-create the toolkits. The design process began with an intensive two-day workshop to deliberate on content, format, and dissemination channels, followed by virtual meetings and iterative prototyping cycles that incorporated stakeholder feedback. Given the complexity of implementing such toolkits in health care settings, additional measures were taken to support and assess implementation at the participating health facility sites. Results: The toolkits included core resources, such as training modules, testing guidelines, and maps, and setting-specific content, such as appointment reminders, pulpit announcements, and emergency contact sheets. Materials were provided in both digital and print formats. Onboarding and technical training facilitated implementation in health care settings. Pre/post implementation surveys showed high perceived usefulness and feasibility of the health care toolkits. Implementation patterns favored print resources, with appointment reminders being most utilized. Leadership support enhanced toolkit credibility and adoption. Implementation challenges included COVID-19 fatigue, technology limitations, and leadership transitions. Conclusion: Informational toolkits co-developed with community stakeholders provide a model for translating research into solutions that enhance health equity. Prioritizing community perspectives can improve preparedness for future crises. Successful implementation requires adaptability, multimodal delivery, and sustained leadership buy-in.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.