Sandbergjosefsen3349

In April 2020, in light of COVID-19-related blood shortages, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reduced the deferral period for men who have sex with men (MSM) from its previous duration of 1 year to 3 months.Although originally born out of necessity, the decades-old restrictions on MSM donors have been mitigated by significant advancements in HIV screening, treatment, and public education. The severity of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic-and the urgent need for safe blood products to respond to such crises-demands an immediate reconsideration of the 3-month deferral policy for MSM.We review historical HIV testing and transmission evidence, discuss the ethical ramifications of the current deferral period, and examine the issue of noncompliance with donor deferral rules. We also propose an eligibility screening format that involves an individual risk-based screening protocol and, unlike current FDA guidelines, does not effectively exclude donors on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. Our policy proposal would allow historically marginalized community members to participate with dignity in the blood donation process without compromising blood donation and transfusion safety outcomes.Objectives. To reexamine the time required to provide the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended preventive services to a nationally representative adult patient panel of 2500.Methods. We determined the required time for a single physician to deliver the USPSTF preventive services by multiplying the eligible population, annual frequency, and patient-contact time required for each recommendation, all calculated by using data from the recommendations themselves and literature. We modeled a representative panel of 2500 adults based on the 2010 US Census Bureau data.Results. To deliver the USPSTF recommended preventive services across a 2500 adult patient panel would require 8.6 hours per working day, accounting for 131% of available physician time. Compared with 2003, there are fewer recommendations in 2020, but they require 1.2 more physician patient-contact hours per working day.Conclusions. The time required to deliver recommended preventive care places unrealistic expectations on already overwhelmed providers and leaves patients at risk. This is a systems problem, not a time-management problem. The USPSTF provides a set of recommendations with strong evidence of positive impact. It is imperative that our health care system is designed to deliver.Objectives. To examine how physical health symptoms developed and resolved in response to Hurricane Katrina.Methods. We used data from a 2003 to 2018 study of young, low-income mothers who were living in New Orleans, Louisiana, when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005 (n = 276). We fit logistic regressions to model the odds of first reporting or "developing" headaches or migraines, back problems, and digestive problems, and of experiencing remission or "recovery" from previously reported symptoms, across surveys.Results. The prevalence of each symptom increased after Hurricane Katrina, but the odds of developing symptoms shortly before versus after the storm were comparable. LDC203974 nmr The number of traumatic experiences endured during Hurricane Katrina increased the odds of developing back and digestive problems just after the hurricane. Headaches or migraines and back problems that developed shortly after Hurricane Katrina were more likely to resolve than those that developed just before the storm.Conclusions. While traumatic experiences endured in disasters such as Hurricane Katrina appear to prompt the development of new physical symptoms, disaster-induced symptoms may be less likely to persist or become chronic than those emerging for other reasons.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local health jurisdictions have been using HIV surveillance data to monitor mortality among people with HIV in the United States with age-standardized death rates, but the principles of age standardization have not been consistently followed, making age standardization lose its purpose-comparison over time, across jurisdictions, or by other characteristics.We review the current practices of age standardization in calculating death rates among people with HIV in the United States, discuss the principles of age standardization including those specific to the HIV population whose age distribution differs markedly from that of the US 2000 standard population, make recommendations, and report age-standardized death rates among people with HIV in New York City.When we restricted the analysis population to adults aged between 18 and 84 years in New York City, the age-standardized death rate among people with HIV decreased from 20.8 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 19.2, 22.3) in 2013 to 17.1 per 1000 (95% CI = 15.8, 18.3) in 2017, and the age-standardized death rate among people without HIV decreased from 5.8 per 1000 in 2013 to 5.5 per 1000 in 2017.Objectives. To optimize combined public and private spending on HIV prevention to achieve maximum reductions in incidence.Methods. We used a national HIV model to estimate new infections from 2018 to 2027 in the United States. We estimated current spending on HIV screening, interventions that move persons with diagnosed HIV along the HIV care continuum, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and syringe services programs. We compared the current funding allocation with 2 optimal scenarios (1) a limited-reach scenario with expanded efforts to serve eligible persons and (2) an ideal, unlimited-reach scenario in which all eligible persons could be served.Results. A continuation of the current allocation projects 331 000 new HIV cases over the next 10 years. The limited-reach scenario reduces that number by 69%, and the unlimited reach scenario by 94%. The most efficient funding allocations resulted in prompt diagnosis and sustained viral suppression through improved screening of high-risk persons and treatment adherence support for those infected.Conclusions. Optimal allocations of public and private funds for HIV prevention can achieve substantial reductions in new infections. Achieving reductions of more than 90% under current funding will require that virtually all infected receive sustained treatment.Objectives. To investigate the rate of manuscript submission to a major peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Public Health) by gender, comparing periods before and during the pandemic.Methods. We used data from January 1 to May 12, 2020, and defined the start of the pandemic period by country as the first date of 50 or more confirmed cases. We used an algorithm to classify gender based on first name and nation of origin. We included authors whose gender could be estimated with a certainty of at least 95%.Results. Submission rates were higher overall during the pandemic compared with before. Increases were higher for submissions from men compared with women (41.9% vs 10.9% for corresponding author). For the United States, submissions increased 23.8% for men but only 7.9% for women. Women authored 29.4% of COVID-19-related articles.Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the pandemic exacerbated gender imbalances in scientific research.Contact tracing was one of the core public health strategies implemented during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this essay, we describe the rapid establishment of a volunteer contact tracing program in New Haven, Connecticut. We describe successes of the program and challenges that were faced. Going forward, contact tracing efforts can best be supported by increased funding to state and local health departments for a stable workforce and use of evidence-based technological innovations.Objectives. To examine the differences in adolescent birth rates by deprivation and Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs) in rural and urban counties of the United States in 2017 and 2018.Methods. We analyzed available data on birth rates for females aged 15 to 19 years in the United States using the restricted-use natality files from the National Center for Health Statistics, American Community Survey 5-year population estimates, and the Area Health Resources Files.Results. Rural counties had an additional 7.8 births per 1000 females aged 15 to 19 years (b = 7.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.13, 8.55) compared with urban counties. Counties with the highest deprivation had an additional 23.1 births per 1000 females aged 15 to 19 years (b = 23.12; 95% CI = 22.30, 23.93), compared with less deprived counties. Rural counties with whole shortage designation had an additional 8.3 births per 1000 females aged 15 to 19 years (b = 8.27; 95% CI = 6.86, 9.67) compared with their urban counterparts.Conclusions. Rural communities across deprivation and HPSA categories showed disproportionately high adolescent birth rates. Future research should examine the extent to which contraceptive access differs among deprived and HPSA-designated rural communities and the impact of policies that may create barriers for rural communities.Intersectionality is a critical theoretical framework that emphasizes the influence of intersecting systems of oppression on the lived experiences of people marginalized by inequity. Although applications of intersectionality are increasing in public health, this framework is absent in environmental health, which has instead focused on the exposome, a paradigm that considers the totality of an individual's environmental exposures across the life course.Despite advancements in the biological complexity of exposome models, they continue to fall short in addressing health inequities. Therefore, we highlight the need for integrating intersectionality into the exposome. We introduce key concepts and tools for environmental health scientists interested in operationalizing intersectionality in exposome studies and discuss examples of this innovative approach from our work on racial inequities in uterine fibroids.Our case studies illustrate how interlocking systems of racism and sexism may affect Black women's exposure to environmental chemicals, their epigenetic regulation of uterine fibroids, and their clinical care. Because health relies on biological and social-structural determinants and varies across different intersectional positions, our proposed framework may be a promising approach for understanding environmental health inequities and furthering social justice.Immigration detention centers are densely populated facilities in which restrictive conditions limit detainees' abilities to engage in social distancing or hygiene practices designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19. With tens of thousands of adults and children in more than 200 immigration detention centers across the United States, immigration detention centers are likely to experience COVID-19 outbreaks and add substantially to the population of those infected.Despite compelling evidence indicating a heightened risk of infection among detainees, state and federal governments have done little to protect the health of detained im-migrants. An evidence-based public health framework must guide the COVID-19 response in immigration detention centers.We draw on the hierarchy of controls framework to demonstrate how immigration detention centers are failing to implement even the least effective control strategies. Drawing on this framework and recent legal and medical advocacy efforts, we argue that safely releasing detainees from immigration detention centers into their communities is the most effective way to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in immigration detention settings.