International public health journal 

About: International public health journal is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Population & Health care. It has an ISSN identifier of 1947-4989. Over the lifetime, 206 publications have been published receiving 1247 citations.

Legislative Smoking Bans for Reducing Secondhand Smoke Exposure, Smoking Prevalence and Tobacco Consumption

Abstract: IntroductionA Cochrane systematic review was undertaken to answer the question: "does legislation to ban or restrict tobacco smoking reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and smoking behaviour?"Relevance for nursingSmoking bans are environmental, population-focused approaches that aim to rReducetion in both tobacco smoking behaviours and secondhand smoke exposure. through smoking bans impact the environment and hence population health. Often bans are accompanied by education regarding the need for the ban and support services thato help smokers use the opportunity to quit or reduce their tobacco consumption. Therefore, smoking bans can be associated with the 'settings approach' to health promotion derived from the World Health Organisation's Ottawa Charter (1986). Thise Charter supports population and individual health through integrated, coordinated and multi-dimensional interventions.Study characteristicsAThis was a Cochrane systematic review was undertaken thatwhich produced a 'narrative only' synthesis of 50 studies. Studies (with reported numbers of participants) had samples ranging from of 24 to 10413 subjects. No randomised controlled trials were identified that met review inclusion criteria., Nonethelesshowever, 13 non-randomised controlled studies (quasi-experimental designs) were included; of these 7, were located in a general or workplace setting and 6six related to hospital admissions. A further 37 studies which lacked a control group but recorded data from participants pre and post intervention were also included in the review. In total, In 16 16 of reviewed studies used random sampling was used to select participants from a target population, 11 employed convenience sampling, 5five used randomly selected clusters of bars/public houses; 5five sampling methods were unclear and 2two studies utilised mixed sampling methods.No age, gender or geographic limits were placed on study samples included in the review. ReviewedIncluded studies followed participants for a minimum of six months following the ban (except for 8 studies which measured exposure to second hand smoke). Eight study authors identified that small sample size or low statistical power limited the generalisability of their research findings. No age, gender or geographic limit was placed on participants in reviewed studies. A risk of bias summary table was not included in the review; however, the reviewers note that one source of bias (blinding participants to receipt of the intervention) was not possible in any study, due to the nature of the ban interventions. Eight study authors identified that small sample size or low statistical power was a limitation to the generalisability of their research findings.The most commonly reviewed intervention was a comprehensive legislative ban on indoor smoking that was comprehensive within indoor sites (a total ban in 40 studies). An additional 10Ten ?restriction' intervention studies were also included ; these permitted which the reviewers classified as 'restrictions' as they allowed smoking within a designated area. Twenty two of the reviewed studies were conducted in workplaces, most of these (19) targeted the health of hospitality workers in bars or restaurants. The reviewed studies included bans in 13 countries, mostly the USA (17) or Scotland (8). Exposure to secondhand smoke was collectedmeasured by participants' self-report recordingof either the 'duration of exposure' or 'percentage sample exposed'. Some researchers (mostly those conducting large population studies) also took biochemical samples e.g. of saliva, to validate self-reports. Measures such as: smoking prevalence, tobacco consumption, smoking cessation, and respiratory, cardiac or sensory health outcomes were also considered by the reviewers. …

Health Disparities in the United States

Abstract: Since 1946, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has monitored the health of the American people in order to examine illness, injury, risk behaviors, use of preventive health services, exposure to environmental hazards and premature death over the lifespan. In a new 2011 publication from CDC on health disparities and inequalities (2011 CHDIR) (1) with the headlines:· Social determinants of health· Environmental hazards· Health-care access and preventive health services· Health outcomes: Mortality· Health outcomes: Morbidity· Health outcomes: Behavioral risk factorsHealth disparities were examined in order to find the differences in health outcomes between groups that reflect social inequalities. In the foreword to the report the CDC director Thomas R Frieden, MD, MPH highlights some of the key findings from this wealth of data and analysis of the American people in health and disease:· Lower income residents report fewer average healthy days. Residents of states with larger inequalities in reported number of healthy days also report fewer healthy days on average. The correlation between poor health and health inequality at the state level holds at all levels of income.· Air pollution-related disparities associated with fine particulates and ozone are often determined by geographical location. Local sources of air pollution, often in urban counties, can impact the health of people who live or work near these sources. Both the poor and the wealthy in these counties can experience the negative health effects of air pollution; racial/ethnic minority groups, who are more likely to live in urban counties, continue to experience a disparately larger impact.· Large disparities in infant mortality rates persist. Infants born to black women are 1.5 to 3 times more likely to die than infants born to women of other races/ethnicities.· Men of all race/ethnicities are two to three times more likely to die in motor vehicle crashes than are women, and death rates are twice as high among American Indians/Alaska Natives.· Men of all ages and race/ethnicities are approximately four times more likely to die by suicide than females. Though American Indians/Alaska Natives, who have a particularly high rate of suicide in adolescence and early adulthood, account for only about 1% of the total suicides, they share the highest rates with Non-Hispanic whites who in contrast account for nearly 5 of 6 suicides. The suicide rate among AI/ANs and non-Hispanic whites is more than twice that of blacks, Asian Pacific Islanders and Hispanics.· Rates of drug-induced deaths increased between 2003 and 2007 among men and women of all race/ethnicities, with the exception of Hispanics, and rates are highest among non-Hispanic whites. Prescription drug abuse now kills more persons than illicit drugs, a reversal of the situation 15-20 years ago.· Men are much more likely to die from coronary heart disease, and black men and women are much more likely to die of heart disease and stroke than their white counterparts. Coronary heart disease and stroke are not only leading causes of death in the United States, but also account for the largest proportion of inequality in life expectancy between whites and blacks, despite the existence of low-cost, highly effective preventive treatment.· Rates of preventable hospitalizations increase as incomes decrease. …

Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a superfund site: The Gardenroots case study.

Abstract: IntroductionTypically community members living in contaminated communities are the ones who initially identify adverse ecological and health outcomes associated with toxic exposures (1), although a state agency, regional US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) office, or the responsible party may make this discovery The USEPA may add the site to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, which can lead to a cascade of regulatory and/or remedy events Typically at National Priorities List (NPL) sites with groundwater contamination, the time from discovery to remedy implementation can go beyond 20 years, and long-term management (ie decades to centuries) is needed at many sites (2) As time passes, site managers are responsible for monitoring the progress of remediation and engaging the community to inform them of the cleanup progress and describe potential risks associated with the siteTraditionally, site managers engage the community in a one-way communication model that solely aims to inform, change behavior, and assure populations that the determined risk is acceptable and that cleanup is underway (3, 4) This communication strategy has a low rate of success, primarily because it excludes those most affected (3) and fundamentally does not aim to increase environmental education or involve the community in the decisions about their risk Historically, because communities were not involved in the decision-making process, mistrust often eroded the relationships between scientists, regulatory officials, and the affected communities (5, 6)The lack of public participation at contaminated sites is a great loss, as community members have been contributing to science since the 17th century (7, 8) and in general, volunteerism is considered critical to civic life in the United States (9, 10) Volunteers have monitored watershed health in more than 700 programs in the US, involving over 400,000 local stakeholders (11) and most ecological research once fostered public participation in most or all of the steps in the scientific process (8) However, due to the professionalization of science, the role of the amateur scientist has diminished (8) The value of public participation in addressing environmental and health issues has received renewed attention in the past couple of decades through efforts such as public participation in scientific research (PPSR)/ citizen science (12), community based participatory research (CBPR) (13), popular epidemiology (14), and street science (15)Public participation in scientific research, often termed citizen science, is a form of informal science education, and is broadly defined as a partnership between scientists and non-scientists in which authentic data are collected, shared, and analyzed (12, 16, 17) Citizen science projects are meant to increase a participant's scientific literacy (12), to collect field data to monitor a variety of environmental conditions (7), and as a framework to support and enhance decision-making in modern society (17, 18) Previous research in science education and sociology has demonstrated the need to engage communities in scientific research and that this level of engagement can be successfully facilitated via community-academic partnerships Members of a community neighboring a contaminated site are typically intrinsically motivated to learn more about the issues regarding the contaminated site in their community and in most cases, have already begun to gather additional scientific data hypothesize other potential routes of exposure and areas that need additional monitoring Research related to inquiry-based education has elucidated how people have a greater motivation to engage and learn when the subject matter is directly related to their lives and if the learning process is interactive (19) Popular epidemiology, a community-driven practice, was proposed after observing the activities of communities experiencing contamination and entails community initiation of investigations, gathering of scientific knowledge, and, if necessary, recruiting of scientific professionals (14) …

Stress pathways to health inequalities: Embedding ACEs within social and behavioral contexts.

Abstract: IntroductionWe have long recognized that the strain of living under stressful and inhospitable circumstances has significant health consequences. Inequalities in health have been linked with not only with minority statuses and socioeconomic characteristics that form a healthwealth gradient, but also with increasing awareness of multiple risk exposures including jeopardizing stress loads at the family level (1, 2). Running in tandem is the recognition that stressful experiences in childhood, such as maltreatment, loss, poverty, and family disorder, hold significant implications for later life development and health. Elevated exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), for example, has demonstrated a dose-response relationship-that is, steady decrements in health associated with increases in the number of ACEs-to a host of health problems (3, 4).Growing efforts to articulate bridges across these lines of inquiry are illuminating the value of assessing the cumulative and distinctive contribution of early life adversities in addition to social determinant factors that reflect structured social patterning underlying inequalities (5, 6). The current paper focuses on this juncture, approaching the question of sustained impact of early life adversities on physical health into mature and later adulthood within a broader health factors context. We theorize that elevated ACEs in early life reflect multi-form stress exposure that is likely to be associated with incremental erosion of health as evidenced by earlier and greater susceptibility to illness, poor health through multiple clinical disorders, and a lessened sense of well-being and vitality. Recognizing that early life adversity can affect health through social as well as biological cascades, we argue the value of mutually assessing socioeconomic and early adversity contributions to distinguish both their unique and overlapping effects. As part of a health promotion framework, we also seek to evaluate the contribution of mutable health promotive factors such as optimism and social support toward buffering the effects of early adversity and social disadvantage.Deepening understanding of etiologies regarding inequalities in stress and adverse environmental exposures and subsequent health outcomes requires integration of insights spanning disciplinary sciences as well as intervening professions (7). Social workers are essential partners in this vein. Social work is inherently an integrative discipline that conceptually locates problems within histories and contexts, embeds its work force in settings within which people live and seek supports, and uses collaborative team models when managing client care. Within this special issue, we argue the value of integrative approaches that consider intersections between individual- and family-level adverse childhood experiences and the social pathways within which cumulative impact on health evolves (8). We will address ways in which social work has special opportunities to interrupt these pathways, acknowledging also the relevance to allied professionals working with populations across the life course.Theorized pathwaysConverging research across biological, health, and social sciences is revealing mechanisms through which adversities trigger neurobiological disruptions that can become embedded as biological traces within interconnected chains of response and development. Stress embodiment models illustrate pathways through which early life adversities affect later health via burdens placed on biological systems in response to chronic stressors (9, 10). Evidence is building that these stress-evoking conditions in the early years of life, induce significant biological changes that modify maturation and disrupt the balance of stress response systems, leading to wear and tear and allostatic overload (11, 12) and become part of the groundwork for decrements to later well-being.Early adversity predicts susceptibility to illness, such as the common cold, through processes that are complex, including inequalities in healthy living conditions, increased risk of social difficulties, and neurophysiological dyregulation and damage (13, 14). …

Risk and Protective Factors Related to the Wellness of American Indian and Alaska Native Youth: A Systematic Review

Abstract: IntroductionA goal of the United States Affordable Health Care Act is to move the nation a step closer toward health equity, a priority of the Healthy People 2020 initiative (1, 2). If health equity, or reaching and maintaining the highest health for all people, is a desired outcome, then understanding the current inequalities is of utmost importance (2). American and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) inequities experience some of the most widely documented health disparities in the United States (3, 4). This is due, in part, to the disconnect between the paradigms employed in mainstream social work practice and research and the worldviews more salient among AI/AN populations (5, 6). For example, rather than separating mental health from physical health, many AI/AN populations value the strong connection between physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health (7, 8); emotional health is viewed from a perspective of wellness (7,8). We argue that the AI/AN nations deserve medical and mental health services that complement their cultural heritage that have sustained them for many centuries. We define wellness as the balance between the intertwined mind, body, soul, and spirit, (7). Researchers recommend this holistic and strengthsbased perspective about health (7, 8). Therefore, this systematic review focuses on wellness, which we view as resilience in the form of prosocial emotional and academic outcomes, as well as mental health disparities.With a trust responsibility, based on treaty agreements with sovereign tribes requiring the United States federal government to provide for the healthcare of AI/AN populations in exchange for 400 million acres of land (9), a critical barrier to health equity among AI/AN populations exists. Great heterogeneity exists across AI/AN populations, and research consistently finds significant differences in prevalence of mental health disparities across these populations (3, 4, 10-12). Despite this variability, psychiatric distress in the form of mental health disorders tends to be disproportionately high across populations (3).AI/ANs represent over five million people and 1.7% of the U.S. population (13). With rapidly changing demographics, AI/ANs increased by almost twice the rate of the general U.S. population between the years 2000 and 2010. In total, 78% of AI/ANs live off of reservation land (13). Yet, this percentage differs among people who identify as either multiethnic or solely AI/AN, with more AI/AN's living off of reservation land in the former than the latter (13). On average, these populations are more likely to live in poverty, experience violent victimization and traumatic loss, domestic violence, and educational inequities than non-AI/AN populations (4). AI/AN youth between the ages of 12 and 19 are more likely than non-AI/AN youth to experience serious violent crime and be affected by a sudden traumatic death (4). Rates of witnessing intimate partner violence and experiencing child maltreatment are also elevated (4). Given the disproportionately high rates that AI/AN youth experience inequity in income and education, as well as traumatic stressors, it is not surprising that many also experience mental health disparities (4).Resilience among AI/AN youthAlthough the research available on AI/AN youth is relatively small, studies document elevated rates for substance use disorders, conduct and oppositional defiant disorders, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorders (PTSD) (3,4). Moreover, the suicide rate for AI/AN youth ranges from three to six times higher than non-AI/AN peers (4). Indeed suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for AI/ANs ages 15-34 years (14).With these concerning statistics, the fact that the majority of AI/AN youth are healthy and not experiencing mental health disparities can often be overlooked (12). Despite the undoubted resilience of AI/AN populations after centuries of historical trauma, loss, and oppression, current research tends to focus on risk factors (15). …