Torres-Herbeck, Gloria

Abstract Background Immigrant women experience disproportionate psychosocial stress driven by acculturation, socioeconomic hardship, discrimination, and transnational responsibilities. Despite evidence supporting culturally tailored stress‑management interventions, limited formative research has examined program preferences across diverse immigrant communities. Methods Using a community‑based participatory research (CBPR) approach, we conducted three language‑concordant focus groups (Somali, Spanish, English; n = 18) and a mixed‑methods survey (n = 88) with immigrant women in southeast Minnesota. Qualitative data were analyzed using constant comparative methods; quantitative data were summarized descriptively. Results Participants described intersecting stressors including caregiving burdens, financial insecurity, immigration‑related fears, bicultural identity strain, and transnational obligations (e.g., “Every day you are being told of problems back at home”). Barriers to discussing stress included stigma, limited culturally concordant care, religious norms discouraging emotional disclosure, and structural constraints such as lack of insurance (e.g., “How are you gonna pay for a therapist if you don't have health insurance?”). Coping strategies varied culturally but consistently emphasized social support, spirituality, and practical stress‑reduction techniques. Survey findings indicated strong preference for education on stress, stigma reduction, culturally and linguistically aligned support groups, and flexible delivery formats (in‑person, hybrid). Conclusions Immigrant women experience multifaceted stress shaped by minority stress processes and structural inequities. Findings highlight the need for culturally responsive, community‑informed stress‑management interventions that integrate education, social support, and flexible delivery modalities. These results directly inform adaptation of a stress‑management program for Somali, Spanish‑, and English‑speaking immigrant women.

Objectives: This study was conducted to assess an intervention that was created by a community–academic partnership to address COVID-19 health inequities. We evaluated a community-engaged bidirectional pandemic crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC) framework with immigrant and refugee populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A 17-year community-engaged research partnership adopted a CERC framework in March 2020 to address COVID-19 prevention, testing, and socioeconomic impacts with immigrant and refugee groups in southeast Minnesota. The partnership used bidirectional communication between communication leaders and their social networks to refine messages, leverage resources, and advise policy makers. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation for intervention acceptability, feasibility, reach, adaptation, and sustainability through multisource data, including email communications, work group notes, semistructured interviews, and focus groups. Results: The intervention reached at least 39 000 people in 9 months. It was implemented as intended and perceived efficacy was high. Frequent communication between community and academic partners allowed the team to respond rapidly to concerns and facilitated connection of community members to resources. Framework implementation also led to systems and policy changes to meet the needs of immigrant and refugee populations. Conclusions: Community-engaged CERC is feasible and sustainable and can reduce COVID-19 disparities through shared creation and dissemination of public health messages, enhanced connection to existing resources, and incorporation of community perspectives in regional pandemic mitigation policies.