What makes this particularly galling, Susan Quinn argues, is that research shows that community college students "are more at risk [than UC students], because they are a more marginalized population, their socio-economic status is less.
This finding is not too surprising because programs that aim to increase accessibility are designed to compensate for social inequities by making products more available for marginalized populations who may not have equal access to those resources (e.g., massive distribution of free condoms).
While some of these barriers appear to relate to general problems, like lack of service capacity or resources, others refer to mundanely practical or bureaucratic issues (e.g., proof of residence) that are proven to affect marginalized populations more tangibly than others.
Further, today, HIV has tightened its grip on the nation's most vulnerable and marginalized populations, which include more women, children and young people.
UNICEF remains committed to promoting more equitable access to essential, life-saving interventions, and recent legislative changes have resulted in the government being more responsive to the needs of marginalized populations.
Research tends to be oriented towards the interests of scientists, funders and powerful interest groups, instead of the health needs of populations and interests of more marginalized groups [ 1, 2].
That will require the world to invest the proper resources upfront to build more effectively-tailored programs that can reach the most marginalized populations.
And we need more effective public awareness campaigns, hyper-targeted to the most marginalized populations, which are often the most vulnerable.
Also considering ethnically or economically marginalized populations, Ngoitiko et al. present a more optimistic analysis of devolution, focusing on the much contested and highly valuable land in Loliondo, Tanzania.
