Only few studies evaluated whether hurricane preparedness impacts health. The PREPARE study addresses this gap. We recruited participants who had pertinent pre-hurricane data from the San Juan Overweight Adults Longitudinal Study (SOALS: n=364) and 125 patients with diabetes from Federally Qualified Health Center (COSSMA) in Puerto Rico. Participants aged 42–75 years completed interviews 20–34 months after Hurricanes Irma and Maria. We evaluated associations between self-reported hurricane preparedness and health and other related associations using logistic regression controlling for age, location, education and interview date. Only 41% of participants reported high pre-hurricane preparedness; 25% reported gaps (moderate/low availability) in information and 48% reported gaps in resources for hurricane preparedness. Participants reporting lower pre-hurricane preparedness had higher reported hurricane-related detrimental health impact (OR=1.96; 95% CI: 1.31, 2.95) and higher odds (OR=2.07; 95% CI: 0.92, 4.68) of developing new non-communicable disease (NCD) compared to others. Post-hurricane drinking water disruption for ≥ 3 months versus none or less (OR=2.76; 95% CI: 1.39, 5.47) and similarly diet changes due to cooking/refrigeration access (OR=1.96; 95% CI: 1.24, 3.07), and diet changes for ≥ 20 months due to finances/access to shops (OR=2.83; 95% CI: 1.85, 4.32) were also associated with detrimental health impact. Lower preparedness was associated with higher detrimental impact of the hurricanes on overall health, and marginally significant impact on NCD. Future preparedness efforts could especially target means of coping with disruption of water services and regular diet, as these were also associated with detrimental health impact.

Background: Healthcare and social organizations (HSOs) are first respondents after natural disasters. Hence, their preparedness and resilience are critical components for addressing future disasters. However, little is known about HSOs’ experiences prior to, during, and after hurricanes. Objective: To describe preparedness, response, and recovery experiences from hurricanes Irma/ Maria among HSOs in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Methods: Using a convenience sample, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 52 key-informants. Content analysis for common and recurring themes and patterns was performed by HSO type. Results: Most HSOs (80.8%) had a preparedness plan and 55.8% responded providing emergency supplies. HSOs’ human resources (61.2%) was the main recovery facilitator/ enabler, while 36.5% identified the lack of economic resources and the lack of an integrated emergency plan as the top barriers. The main lesson learned include understanding the need to make improvements to their emergency preparedness plans (56.3%), and to establish an integrated/ centralized plan between relevant parties. Conclusion: Lessons learned after hurricanes allowed HSOs to identify gaps and opportunities to become more resilient. Infrastructure capacity, human resources, communication systems, and economic support, as well as training, partnerships, and new policies should be defined, revised, and/ or integrated into the HSOs’ preparedness plans to mitigate the impact of future disasters.

The NIH-funded Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) program is currently funding 18 academic institutions to strengthen the research environment and contribution to health disparities research. The purpose of this multiphase mixed-methods study was to establish a uniform evaluation framework for demonstrating the collective success of this research consortium. Methods included discussions of aims and logic models at the RCMI Evaluators’ Workshop, a literature review to inform an evaluation conceptual framework, and a case study survey to obtain evaluation-related information and metrics. Ten RCMIs participated in the workshop and 14 submitted responses to the survey. The resultant RCMI Evaluation Conceptual Model presents a practical ongoing approach to document RCMIs’ impacts on health disparities. Survey results identified 37 common metrics under four primary categories. Evaluation challenges were issues related to limited human resources, data collection, decision-making, defining metrics, cost-sharing, and revenue-generation. There is a need for further collaborative efforts across RCMI sites to engage program leadership and community stakeholders in addressing the identified evaluation challenges and measurement. Program leadership should be engaged to apply the Evaluation Conceptual Framework and common metrics to allow for valid inter-institutional comparisons and consortium-wide evaluations. Stakeholders could ensure evaluation metrics are used to facilitate community impacts.

Objective: Robust research has established that preexisting physical and mental health conditions increase risk for adverse psychiatric outcomes after disasters. However, it is unclear if increased risk is independent of disaster exposure, and most studies have relied on retrospective reports of pre-disaster functioning. Methods: In a pre-post sample of high-risk Puerto Rican adults (N = 361) who experienced Hurricanes Irma and Maria, we assessed: 1) whether indicators of pre-disaster depression and physical health conditions were associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms; and 2) whether the effects of pre-disaster depression and physical health conditions on PTSD and MDD symptoms were indirect via disaster exposure or had exacerbated the effects of disaster exposure on PTSD and MDD symptoms. Results: Pre-disaster depression and physical health problems were significantly associated with higher post-disaster MDD symptoms (B = 1.50, SE = 0.36, p < .001, and B = 0.21; SE = 0.09, P = 0.016), but not PTSD symptoms. Indirect effects of pre-disaster depression and physical health symptoms via disaster exposure were non-significant, and neither moderated the association of disaster exposure on PTSD and MDD symptoms. Conclusions: Research is needed to understand other pathways through which pre-disaster health conditions predict post-disaster mental health.

In 2020, evaluators within the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) program proposed a conceptual framework identifying four primary evaluation targets: scientific productivity, scientific collaboration, professional growth, and research resources. This study extends prior work by capturing the contextual and process-oriented dimensions of program impact. This reflective practice-based project examines how non-quantitative approaches complement traditional metrics to better characterize RCMI outcomes. Evaluators representing ten RCMI sites participated in a multi-site case study guided by three questions addressing: (1) qualitative evidence of impact beyond metrics; (2) challenges and successes in implementation of non-quantitative methods; and (3) potential expansion of evaluation targets. Evaluators provided descriptive responses, generating a 22-page dataset that was analyzed thematically. Thirteen non-quantitative evaluation domains emerged: investigator consultations, investigator productivity, investigator success, community partnerships, intra-RCMI collaborations, implementation of team science, career progression, programmatic support, mentoring support, impact on RCMI affiliates, intellectual resources, physical resources, and faculty hires. Key challenges included inconsistent data capture and limited evaluation resources, while successes highlighted improved cross-site learning and visibility of program impact. Findings support retaining the original evaluation targets while expanding the framework to include institutional transformation, equitable research environments, and longitudinal societal impact. A conceptual map was developed to depict how mixed methods that include non-quantitative approaches can yield RCMI evaluations that expand upon the current approach, which relies primarily on quantitative data. The authors recommend quantitative targets and non-quantitative strategies to provide context, communicate evidence of success, and inform programmatic changes to deepen the findings and strengthen the rigor of RCMI evaluation practices.

Background: Maternal and newborn health disparities remain a challenge in Puerto Rico, especially in underserved communities. Comienzo Saludable Puerto Rico, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy Start Initiative (HRSA), addresses these gaps through an integrated Networks of Care model known as Cuidado Compartido. Comienzo Saludable Puerto Rico is a maternal, paternal, and child health program aimed at improving the health and well-being of pregnant women, mothers, fathers, newborns, and children in Puerto Rico, particularly those from disadvantaged communities. Methods: This paper presents the Comienzo Saludable Puerto Rico program’s Cuidado Compartido model to integrate a network of healthcare providers and services across hospitals, community organizations, and families. This model aims to improve maternal and newborn/child health outcomes by focusing on the importance of integrated, hospital-community-based care networks. Results: Participants experienced significant improvements in key birth outcomes: low birth weight prevalence declined by 27.2% compared to the community baseline, premature birth rates decreased by 30.9%, and infant mortality dropped by 75%, reaching 0% by 2021 and remaining there through 2023. These results were complemented by increases in maternal mental health screening, paternal involvement, and breastfeeding practices. Conclusions: The Cuidado Compartido model demonstrates a scalable, culturally responsive strategy to improve maternal, newborn, and child health outcomes. It offers critical insights for implementation in other high-need contexts.