Race matters pdf download

Leadership transition in private equity firms is an understudied field, despite the important, albeit controversial, role such firms play in developed economies.

We analyzed firms in an empirical study, supplemented by qualitative interviews with a small sample of highly experienced limited partners LPs and general partner GP founders and leaders who have experienced such transitions first-hand.

We analyzed firms in an empirical study, supplemented by qualitative interviews with a small sample of highly experienced limited partners LPs and general partner GP founders In early , James Quincey, the 14th chair of the year old The Coca-Cola Company, was in the midst of a years-long transformation of Coca-Cola from being the leading carbonated soft drink CSD beverage company into a total beverage company.

The company had both acquired and developed many new beverage brands. It was in the process of changing its culture to be faster moving and more willing to take risks, and a culture where the new brands meant as much to the company as did its flagship product, which was still the company's largest selling beverage.

Harambe was a non-profit organization whose mission was to build an ecosystem to identify promising young African entrepreneurs and provide them access to training, markets, capital, and support networks.

There was mounting pressure for Harambe to evolve to take advantage of its momentum, the changing entrepreneurship landscape in Africa, and increasing investor interest. In this paper, we use a field experiment conducted in partnership with a nationwide staffing platform to test policies that more directly address the reasons that employers may conduct criminal background checks.

HBS Book. Strategic Management Journal 42, no. Leadership Initiative. Featured Case. HBS Working Paper. Forum for Growth and Innovation The Forum for Growth and Innovation is designed to discover, develop and disseminate robust, accessible theory in the areas of innovation and general management, in order to create a tighter link between research and practice in general management. Nov Dec Recent Publications.

Myers , Karim R. Lakhani and Dashun Wang. The most critical factors to effectively promote student success are quality teachers, smaller class sizes, access to high quality after-school programs, advanced curricula and modern learning facilities. The consequences of failing to ensure educational success are far-reaching.

The adverse impact is long term and reflected in future employment prospects, poverty and incarceration rates. Because of race and class segregation and its relationship to local school revenues, students in high-poverty racially segregated schools are not exposed to high-quality curricula, highly qualified teachers, or important social networks as often as students in wealthier, predominantly White schools.

Both online and offline submission options are available for individuals to submit the form. More specifically, the individuals and HUfs who are carrying on a business and earning income from house property, salary or pension and other sources are eligible to ITR-3 Form Get to know the process of online filing ITR income tax return 3 form for AY Also, we published the ITR 3 due dates for individuals and businesses. ITR-3 Form can be filed both online and offline by the individuals.

The offline option is only available for the ones who are aged 80 years or more. Apart from these, the individuals who are having less than INR 5 lakh income and do no claim a refund on ITR can opt for the offline option. Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Few articles explicitly identified the drivers targeted by their interventions. Li et al. Batey et al.

Geibel et al. Shah et al. Interventions targeted attitudes, knowledge of stigma, knowledge of the condition, fear, ability to clinically manage the condition, client coping mechanisms, or institutional policies Table 1.

While some interventions explicitly stated the stigma driver targeted by their intervention, others did not; in cases where the stigma drivers were not explicitly described, we inferred the drivers targeted from the overall description of the intervention. Nearly 30 interventions targeted more than one driver. The most commonly targeted driver was knowledge about the condition.

No regional trends or patterns were identified. Of the 40 unique quantitative studies, 27 reduced stigma and 13 had mixed results Table 1. However, the included interventions were evaluated using different measures, making cross-intervention comparisons difficult. Of note, certain interventions were evaluated using a wide array of stigma measures, while others were evaluated using just a few survey questions. Some evaluations had multiple follow-up surveys, while others only used one post-intervention time-point.

Others pooled their measures of stigma into an overall index or score, while others examined differences between individual items. Interventions using more stigma measures were more likely to obtain mixed results than those using just a few measures. Several gaps emerged from the literature search. Of note was the absence of recent stigma reduction interventions in health facilities for TB, diabetes, leprosy, or cancer.

This may be because the presence of health facility stigma around diabetes and cancer has only relatively recently been recognized. For leprosy, it has very low and geographically confined prevalence. The dearth of evaluations of stigma reduction interventions for TB was particularly notable; the lack of interventions addressing TB stigma has been noted by two other recent reviews of TB-related stigma [ 77 , 78 ]. Other gaps identified included either no or few interventions that 1 targeted all levels of clinical or non-clinical health facility staff, concentrated on multiple ecological levels, or worked to structurally change physical or policy aspects of the facility environment; 2 engaged health facility staff and clients in a collaborative effort to design and implement stigma reduction interventions; 3 leveraged technology for interactive learning beyond videos for testimonials; and 4 recognized and addressed stigma experienced by health workers.

There is growing recognition that, to deliver a sustainable and scaled response to health facility stigma, it is important to address stigma at multiple ecological levels within a health facility [ 3 , 64 , 79 ]. While this search of the literature identified only one intervention targeting all levels of staff in a facility [ 64 ], current efforts led by some authors of this manuscript in Thailand the 3X4 approach [ 80 ], Ghana, and Tanzania the Health Policy Project total facility approach [ 81 ] are developing and testing a package of interventions that work at both the individual health facility staff and structural health facility policy and environment levels within a facility.

At the individual level, these interventions focus on participatory training of health facility staff of all cadres clinical and non-clinical. Any health facility employee who has client contact can stigmatize; therefore, working with all cadres of health workers is important. At the structural level, the 3X4 and the Health Policy Project total facility approaches are focused on developing and enforcing anti-discrimination policies, infection control by providing supplies and enforcing standard precaution infection control practices, as well as client complaint and compliment mechanisms.

Further investigation of the potential for structural interventions to reduce stigma is needed [ 82 ], particularly around how the physical layout or space within a facility can contribute to, or mitigate, the experience and anticipation of stigma in facilities [ 83 ].

Based on the experiences of staff and clients, simple physical changes can lower the experience and risk of stigma, as well as unwanted disclosure [ 84 , 85 ]. For example, a pharmacist participating in the stigma reduction training in Ghana became aware that their pharmacy inadvertently stigmatized clients living with HIV and disclosed their HIV status by having two separate windows for medicine pick-up: one for clients living with HIV, and one for everyone else.

Following the intervention, all clients now go to the same window [ 86 , 87 ]. Keeping those who fear, or are burdened, by stigmatization at the center of any response to stigma has been identified as a best practice [ 74 , 84 , 85 , 88 ]. This includes working to empower people or groups experiencing stigma, for example, by building skills and efficacy to address internalized stigma and cope with and challenge stigma, and building partnerships with gatekeepers and opinion leaders for change.

From the literature identified, the most common way of involving clients experiencing stigma in the intervention was as trainers or speakers [ 58 , 64 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 ]. This ongoing work in Alabama, USA, brings together health workers and clients in a workshop setting outside of the facility, to share information, increase contact, and use empowerment strategies to challenge HIV-related and intersecting stigmas.

The latter is done by implementing a stigma reduction project that was developed by clients and health workers. Similarly, an ongoing intervention to prevent stigma towards people with MI or substance abuse in Lima, Peru, and Toronto, Canada, brings together primary health providers and clients to reduce stigma through five steps, one of which involves providers and clients working together in creative workshops to produce art that is presented to others [ 94 ].

In recent years, healthcare systems have witnessed rapid advances in technology, including, but not limited to, the use of electronic medical records and use of the internet, tablets, and phones to provide care, collect data, and support clinical information and ongoing education.

These advances, particularly the use of self-learning via tablets, the Internet, and phones offer potentially efficient methods to deliver stigma reduction to busy health facility staff [ 73 , 95 ]. Technology can also offer clients a way to mitigate or avoid health facility stigma [ 96 , 97 ]. An ongoing study in India has developed, and is testing, a stigma reduction intervention that targets nursing students and health facility ward staff through two self-learning sessions on tablets, and one in-person 1.

This intervention targets several key individual-level drivers of stigma, including awareness, fear, and attitudes. Another co-author is leading the ongoing Client Centered Care Coordination C4 intervention, which uses mobile technology to empower and help clients mitigate and avoid stigma in New York state USA , Toronto Canada , and multiple sites in Ghana [ 99 ].

This intervention uses different phone apps to connect clients living with HIV from key population communities, to peer support and to nurses and other health personnel, and to report and receive feedback on health behaviors and illness symptoms.

Using mobile apps act as an access point to health services and reduce the opportunities for being exposed to stigma in the physical space of the health facility, as well as potential unwanted disclosure of HIV status. Lastly, we found no interventions with a specific focus on health workers living with a stigmatized disease, and addressing any stigma they may experience from co-workers or through the facility structures.

Research has shown that stigma affects healthcare workers, either because of their own health status or as a result of working with stigmatized individuals [ , ]. The HaTSaH study, an ongoing study in Free State province, South Africa, is addressing this gap through a combination intervention approach that focuses on reducing HIV and TB stigma among health workers towards colleague health workers living with HIV and TB through clinical, structural, and sociobehavioral factors [ ].

Across these sets of ongoing efforts, which address different health condition stigmas, several factors are being recognized as key to the interventions. Involvement of clients living with the stigmatized condition or behavior is critical, whether this is by creating safe spaces for contact e.

Additionally, it is important to pay attention to physical space and how it can lead to stigma and or unwanted disclosure of status. There are several limitations to our literature review. We limited the focus of the review to seven specific conditions.

The timeframe and scope are necessarily limited. Meta-analysis was not possible because of variability in study designs and a lack of standardized measures. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are available for some of the specific health condition stigmas included in this paper, and we drew on these to contextualize the current analysis. Some interventions evaluated stigma using a single measure or question, while others measured many different stigma constructs using a host of measurement tools.

As only articles published in English were included, completeness cannot be guaranteed. Additionally, while there were many core similarities in how stigma could be addressed at the health facility level, regardless of disease, the generalizability of these findings to other conditions may be limited because identified interventions only addressed stigma related to HIV, MI, and substance abuse disorders, with a preponderance of interventions for the latter two conditions.

Despite these limitations, the findings from the review draw from 42 stigma reduction efforts around the globe aimed at mitigating health facility stigma. Particularly in resource-constrained health facilities, interventions that find synergies for stigma reduction across conditions could potentially create economies of scale, offering cost and time savings.

The current state of knowledge regarding stigma reduction interventions provides a solid foundation to further develop interventions that address the gaps identified in this manuscript and address multiple health condition stigmas simultaneously.

Future investment in stigma reduction should prioritize conditions that have been overlooked in the recent literature for example, TB , rigorous evaluation, underrepresented geographic locations, addressing stigma at multiple ecological levels within a health facility for a sustainable response, and standardizing measures to facilitate comparisons between intervention approaches and methods.

Stigma does not only affect those who are living with stigmatized health conditions. Its ramifications reverberate outward through communities and inwards through the health facility into the policies and procedures that guide care, and on to the staff who are charged with providing care. It matters because reducing stigma has the potential to improve the health workplace environment, the quality of care provided by staff, the clinical outcomes of individuals living with stigmatized health conditions, and the social risks taken when accessing healthcare for particular conditions.

Standardize stigma measures to facilitate comparisons between intervention approaches and methods. Study the scale-up and routinization of stigma reduction in health facilities, with a focus on sustainable responses. Conceptualizing stigma. Annu Rev Soc. Protocol for identification of discrimination against people living with HIV.

Google Scholar. Combating HIV stigma in health care settings: what works? Stigma, negative attitudes and discrimination towards mental illness within the nursing profession: a review of the literature. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs.

Stigma among patients with lung cancer: a patient-reported measurement model. PubMed Google Scholar. Health professionals as stigmatisers of tuberculosis: insights from community members and patients with TB in an urban district in Ghana.

Psychol Health Med. Impact of HIV-related stigma on treatment adherence: systematic review and meta-synthesis. A systematic review of qualitative findings on factors enabling and deterring uptake of HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa.

BMC Public Health. Underutilization of cervical cancer prevention services in low and middle income countries: a review of contributing factors. Pan Afr Med J. Dey S. World J Clin Oncol. Eur J Cancer Care. CAS Google Scholar. Barriers and facilitators to starting insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract. Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and barriers reported by patients receiving diabetes and hypertension primary health care in Barbados: a focus group study.

BMC Fam Pract. Hofstraat K, van Brakel WH. Social stigma towards neglected tropical diseases: a systematic review. Int Health. Challenges and opportunities in global mental health: a research-to-practice perspective. Curr Psychiatr Rep. Drug-related stigma and access to care among people who inject drugs in Vietnam. Drug Alcohol Rev. Stigma as a barrier to substance abuse treatment among those with unmet need: an analysis of parenthood and marital status. J Fam Issues. A systematic review of delay in the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis.

Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: systematic review. Drug Alcohol Depend. Prospective associations between HIV-related stigma, transmission risk behaviors, and adverse mental health outcomes in men who have sex with men. Ann Behav Med. BMJ Open. Reducing barriers to consulting a general practitioner in patients at increased risk of lung cancer: a qualitative evaluation of the CHEST Australia intervention.

Fam Pract.