Search

Objectives. To examine commonalities and gaps in the content of local US heat action plans (HAPs) designed to decrease the adverse health effects of extreme heat. Methods. We used content analysis to identify common strategies and gaps in extreme heat preparedness among written HAPs in the United States from jurisdictions that serve municipalities with more than 200 000 residents. We reviewed, coded, and analyzed plans to assess the prevalence of key components and strategies. Results. All 21 plans evaluated incorporated data on activation triggers, heat health messaging and risk communication, cooling centers, surveillance activities, and agency coordination, and 95% incorporated information on outreach to at-risk populations. Gaps existed in the specific applications of these broad strategies. Conclusions. Practice-based recommendations as well as future areas of research should focus on increasing targeted strategies for at-risk individuals and expanding the use of surveillance data outside of situational awareness. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(5):559–567. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307217 )

Background Increasingly frequent and intense extreme heat events (EHEs) are indicative of climate change impacts, and urban areas’ social and built environments increase their risk for health consequences. Heat action plans (HAPs) are a strategy to bolster municipal EHE preparedness. The objective of this research is to characterize municipal interventions to EHEs and compare U.S. jurisdictions with and without formal heat action plans. Methods An online survey was sent to 99 U.S. jurisdictions with populations > 200,000 between September 2021 and January 2022. Summary statistics were calculated to describe the proportion of total jurisdictions, as well as jurisdictions with and without HAPs and in different geographies that reported engagement in extreme heat preparedness and response activities. Results Thirty-eight (38.4%) jurisdictions responded to the survey. Of those respondents, twenty-three (60.5%) reported the development of a HAP, of which 22 (95.7%) reported plans for opening cooling centers. All respondents reported conducting heat-related risk communications; however, communication approaches focused on passive, technology-dependent mechanisms. While 75.7% of jurisdictions reported having developed a definition for an EHE, less than two-thirds of responding jurisdictions reported any of the following activities: conducting heat-related surveillance (61.1%), implementing provisions for power outages (53.1%), increasing access to fans or air conditioners (48.4%), developing heat vulnerability maps (43.2%), or evaluating activities (34.2%). There were only two statistically significant (p ≥ .05) differences in the prevalence of heat-related activities between jurisdictions with and without a written HAP, possibly attributable to a relatively small sample size: surveillance and having a definition of extreme heat. Conclusions Jurisdictions can strengthen their extreme heat preparedness by expanding their consideration of at-risk populations to include communities of color, conducting formal evaluations of their responses, and by bridging the gap between the populations determined to be most at-risk and the channels of communication designed to reach them.

As the impacts of climate change increasingly and disproportionately affect indigenous peoples, equitable approaches to regional climate change adaptation must center the voices, needs, and priorities of Indigenous communities. Although the tribal climate change principles identify actionable recommendations to address the unique needs of Indigenous peoples in the contexts of climate change adaptation efforts undertaken at the Federal level in the United States (U.S.), there has yet to be exploration of how such principles might be applied at the regional level. Through semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 representatives from inter-Tribal organizations and non-Tribal organizations engaged in regional climate adaptation in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, this research sought to describe challenges faced by, and opportunities available to, non-Tribal entities when engaging with Tribes on regional climate adaptation initiatives. All respondents reported high levels of motivation to work with Tribes on climate adaptation and identified several perceived benefits of integrating Tribal partnerships and indigenous ways of knowing into regional climate adaptation initiatives. Respondents underscored the need for strong, trusted relationships that respect the sovereignty and priorities of Tribal nations to guide engagement. However, non-Tribal organizations’ own capacity constraints, perceived Tribal capacity constraints, and institutional cultures rooted in colonialism and structural racism were discussed as obstacles to meaningful engagement. As such, we identify an urgent need to prioritize sustained investments in both Tribal and non-Tribal actors’ partnership capacities and climate change adaptation capabilities to place Indigenous voices and needs at the forefront of regional climate change adaptation planning and implementation.

Background As the health implications of climate change become more apparent, agencies and institutions across the United States are developing recommendations for state and territorial health agencies (S/THAs) to implement evidence-informed climate and health adaptation strategies. The CDC established the Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) framework in 2010 to encourage local and state public health engagement in climate change adaptation. However, even after a decade of the BRACE initiative, the elements that affect the adoption and implementation of climate and health programming by S/THAs are not well understood. Methods Using an implementation science framework, this study sought to further understand and define the barriers and facilitators that determine the breadth and success of climate change and health activities undertaken by state health agencies (SHAs). We conducted focus groups with representatives from SHAs with and without climate and health programs, and analyzed data using the framework method for qualitative research. Results This study identified funding, state and agency-level prioritization, staff capability and capacity, and political will and polarization as factors that influence the readiness for implementation and implementation climate for climate and health activities. Conclusions As the impacts of climate change intensify, S/THAs will need to expand resources and capacity, and seek advocacy and assistance from external organizations in order to support the level of engagement required to strengthen climate resilience. Findings from this study have implications for public health policy and highlight potential pathways to expand support for climate and health activities in S/THAs in the U.S.

Heat is a dangerous hazard that causes acute heat illness, chronic disease exacerbations, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and a range of injuries. Risks are highest during extreme heat events (EHEs), which challenge the capacity of health systems and other critical infrastructure. EHEs are becoming more frequent and severe, and climate change is driving an increasing proportion of heat-related mortality, necessitating more investment in health protection. Climate-resilient health systems are better positioned for EHEs, and EHE preparedness is a form of disaster risk reduction. Preparedness activities commonly take the form of heat action plans (HAPs), with many examples at various administrative scales. HAP activities can be divided into primary prevention, most important in the pre-event phase; secondary prevention, key to risk reduction early in an EHE; and tertiary prevention, important later in the event phase. After-action reports and other postevent evaluation activities are central to adaptive management of this climate-sensitive hazard. Expected final online publication date for the

Healthcare workers (HCW) who come into contact with tuberculosis (TB) patients are at elevated risk of TB infection and disease. The collection and handling of sputum samples for TB diagnosis poses exposure risks to HCW, particularly in settings where aerosol containment is limited. An alternative sample collection method, tongue swabbing, was designed to help mitigate this risk, and is under evaluation in multiple settings. This study assessed risk perceptions among South African HCW who used tongue swabbing in TB diagnostic research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We characterized their context-specific preferences as well as the facilitators and barriers of tongue swab use in clinical and community settings. Participants (n=18) were HCW with experience using experimental tongue swabbing methods at the South African Tuberculosis Vaccine Initiative (SATVI). We used key informant semi-structured interviews to assess attitudes toward two tongue swab strategies: Provider-collected swabbing (PS) and supervised self-swabbing (SSS). Responses from these interviews were analyzed by rapid qualitative analysis and thematic analysis methods. Facilitators included aversion to sputum (PS and SSS), perceived safety of the method (SSS), and educational resources to train patients (SSS). Barriers included cultural stigmas, as well as personal security and control of their work environment when collecting swabs in community settings. COVID-19 risk perception was a significant barrier to the PS method. Motivators for HCW use of tongue swabbing differed substantially by use case, and whether the HCW has the authority and agency to implement safety precautions in specific settings. These findings point to a need for contextually specific educational resources to enhance safety of and adherence to the SSS collection method.

Objective: To assess the current state of graduate-level disaster-related curricula (i.e., Masters and Doctoral programs, degree concentrations, and graduate certificates) offered by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH)-accredited public health schools and programs in the US. Methods: This research reviewed, evaluated, and summarized the content of websites of all US-based CEPH-accredited schools and programs to identify disaster-related degree programs, degree concentrations and graduate certificates from April – June 2021. Results: Of 191 schools and programs reviewed, 29 (15%) offered disaster-related curricula, totaling 44 degrees and programs. Programs included Masters-level degrees and Masters/ Doctoral degree concentrations, with the majority taking the form of graduate certificates (64%). Schools that offered disaster-related curricula were clustered in eastern and Gulf states. Conclusion: Most US CEPH-accredited schools and programs do not offer graduate-level disaster-focused curricula. Of the programs offered, far fewer opportunities exist for in-depth graduate-degree level training compared to certificate-level training. Additionally, programs are constrained to certain areas of the country. Our findings suggest a need for disaster and public health emergency-related curricula development within schools and programs of public health to meet the growing needs of communities affected by disasters and emergencies.

Objective: Although extreme heat can impact the health of anyone, certain groups are disproportionately affected. In urban settings, cooling centers are intended to reduce heat exposure by providing air-conditioned spaces to the public. We examined the characteristics of populations living near cooling centers and how well they serve areas with high social vulnerability. Methods: We identified 1402 cooling centers in 81 US cities from publicly available sources and analyzed markers of urban heat and social vulnerability in relation to their locations. Within each city, we developed cooling center access areas, defined as the geographic area within a 0.5-mile walk from a center, and compared sociodemographic characteristics of populations living within versus outside the access areas. We analyzed results by city and geographic region to evaluate climate-relevant regional differences. Results: Access to cooling centers differed among cities, ranging from 0.01% (Atlanta, Georgia) to 63.2% (Washington, DC) of the population living within an access area. On average, cooling centers were in areas that had higher levels of social vulnerability, as measured by the number of people living in urban heat islands, annual household income below poverty, racial and ethnic minority status, low educational attainment, and high unemployment rate. However, access areas were less inclusive of adult populations aged ≥65 years than among populations aged Conclusion: Given the large percentage of individuals without access to cooling centers and the anticipated increase in frequency and severity of extreme heat events, the current distribution of centers in the urban areas that we examined may be insufficient to protect individuals from the adverse health effects of extreme heat, particularly in the absence of additional measures to reduce risk.

Utilizing a longitudinal, observational study, grocery store health and safety controls implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic across stores in two cities were characterized. Sixteen stores between Seattle, WA (n = 9) and Portland, OR (n = 7) were visited monthly by the study team from May 2020 to January 2021, and observations of controls were recorded using a standardized checklist in REDCap. The checklist included questions on the presence or absence of controls such as physical barriers, social distancing markers, required masking of customers, cleaning of check-out stands, and closures of store areas. Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine the proportion of stores with a certain control each month. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to explore how controls changed over time, and whether differences were observed between cities or by income of the area the store serves. Source control (e.g., mask requirements) and engineering controls (e.g., physical barriers at checkout) were the most common and consistent controls observed across stores and over the study period. Controls such as having special hours for vulnerable populations, demarcations on aisles for directionality, and cleaning check-out stands between customers varied significantly over time (p < 0.05 in the mixed-effects model). Having an employee present to clean baskets and carts, as well as physical barriers between self-checkouts, were significantly more common in stores in areas above the median income (p < 0.05 in the mixed-effects model). To best protect workers and shoppers from infectious agents, controls should be evidence-based, consistently implemented across grocery stores, and coupled with administrative practices and policies to promote worker wellbeing.

Disasters are becoming increasingly common and devastating, requiring extensive reconstruction and recovery efforts. At the same time, the level of available resources and the need to rebuild can present opportunities for more resilient land use and infrastructure, and to build healthier, more equitable and sustainable communities. However, disaster-affected individuals may experience trauma and mental health impacts that impede their ability to engage in long-range recovery planning. It is essential to consider and address community trauma when engaging with disaster-affected communities and in developing plans for recovery. Planners and engineers from outside the community (including public, private and non-profit practitioners) are often brought in to support long-term recovery. Most of these practitioners (particularly those focused on longer-range recovery) have no training in how disasters can affect mental health or what this could mean for their interactions with individuals or communities. In order to acknowledge and address disaster trauma in community recovery and redevelopment, we propose a trauma-informed approach which aims to provide practitioners supporting post-disaster community recovery planning guidance, in order to: avoid the causation of harm by re-traumatizing communities; better understand community needs; make sense of observed behaviors and avoid potential roadblocks; avoid becoming traumatized themselves; and facilitate community healing.

This study used a health care claims data set of enrollees in commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans to assess the association between the June 2021 heat wave and the rates of emergency department visits in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington.

Research conducted in the context of a disaster or public health emergency is essential to improve knowledge about its short- and long-term health consequences, as well as the implementation and effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. Integrated approaches to conducting Disaster Research Response (DR2) can answer scientific questions, while also providing attendant value for operational response and recovery. Here, we propose a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) template to guide the collaborative development and implementation of DR2 among academic public health and public health agencies, informed by previous literature, semi-structured interviews with disaster researchers from academic public health across the United States, and discussion groups with public health practitioners. The proposed CONOPS outlines actionable strategies to address DR2 issues before, during, and after disasters for public health scholars and practitioners who seek to operationalize or enhance their DR2 programs. Additional financial and human resources will be necessary to promote widespread implementation of collaborative DR2 programs.

Looming climate change health impacts among rural communities will require a robust health system response. To reduce health inequities and promote climate justice, rural local health departments (LHDs) must be adequately resourced and supported to engage in climate change mitigation and adaptation policy and program development and implementation. In the United States, small local tax bases, overreliance on revenue from fee-based services, and limited federal funding to support climate change and health programming, have left rural LHDs with limited and inflexible human, financial, and political capital to support engagement in local climate change activities. Because of the urgent demands stemming from climate change, additional investments and supports are needed to rapidly build the capacity and capability of rural LHDs. Federal and state approaches to public health funding should consider the unique climate change and health risks of rural communities. Further, cross-jurisdictional shared service arrangements and state-level support to build rural LHDs’ technical capacity, and research on local impacts and culturally appropriate solutions, must be prioritized.

IntroductionThe exceptional production of research evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic required deployment of scientists to act in advisory roles to aid policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions. The unprecedented breadth, scale and duration of the pandemic provides an opportunity to understand how science advisors experience and mitigate challenges associated with insufficient, evolving and/or conflicting evidence to inform public health decision-making.ObjectivesTo explore critically the challenges for advising evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in pandemic contexts, particularly around non-pharmaceutical control measures, from the perspective of experts advising policy-makers during COVID-19 globally.MethodsWe conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 scientific experts and advisors who are/were engaged in COVID-19 EIDM representing four WHO regions and 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Sweden, Uganda, UK, USA) from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants informed decision-making at various and multiple levels of governance, including local/city (n=3), state/provincial (n=8), federal or national (n=20), regional or international (n=3) and university-level advising (n=3). Following each interview, we conducted member checks with participants and thematically analysed interview data using NVivo for Mac software.ResultsFindings from this study indicate multiple overarching challenges to pandemic EIDM specific to interpretation and translation of evidence, including the speed and influx of new, evolving, and conflicting evidence; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited capacity to assess and produce evidence, and adapting evidence from other contexts; multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed for EIDM; the need to make decisions quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made and applied.ConclusionsFindings suggest the urgent need for global EIDM guidance that countries can adapt for in-country decisions as well as coordinated global response to future pandemics.