Search

Background: Nursing professionals are vitally involved in the cascade of care for opioid use disorders (OUDs). The global spread of COVID-19 has had complex effects on public health aspects of major diseases, including OUDs. There are limited data on the major ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the functions of nursing professionals in the care of OUDs., Method: This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and examined published data for trends in OUD care during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on nursing functions. The National Library of Medicine PubMed database and the EMBASE database were examined for peer-reviewed studies with primary data published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021., Review Findings and Conclusions: Rapid changes were observed in numerous aspects of OUDs during the early pandemic stage, as well as its care by nursing and other health professionals. These changes include increased overdoses (primarily from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl) and emergency department visits. These trends varied considerably across U.S. jurisdictions, underscoring the importance of region-specific examinations for public health policy and intervention. Out of necessity, healthcare systems and nursing professionals adapted to the challenges of OUD care in the pandemic. These adaptations included increases in telehealth services, increases in take-home doses of methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone, and expansion of layperson training in the use of naloxone for overdose reversal. It is likely that some of these adaptations will result in long-term changes in standards of care practices for OUDs by nursing professionals., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article., (Copyright © 2024 International Nurses Society on Addictions.)

Many nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study is to estimate the comparative associations of mental disorders with three measures of functional impairment: the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF); the number of days in the past 12 months of total inability to work or carry out normal activities because of emotions, nerves, or mental health (i.e., days out of role); and a modified version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0)., Methods: Secondary data analysis of the linked Mental Health Surveillance Study and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (n = 5653), nationally representative population surveys conducted in the United States. Generalized linear models assessed the independent effects of mental disorders on each measure of functional impairment, controlling for mental disorder comorbidity, physical health disorders, and sociodemographic factors., Results: The results varied across measures of functional impairment. However, mood disorders generally tended to be associated with the greatest functional impairment, anxiety disorders with intermediate impairment, and substance use disorders with the least impairment. All 15 disorders were significantly associated with the GAF score in multiple regression models, eight disorders were significantly associated with the WHODAS score, and three disorders were significantly associated with days out of role., Conclusions: Our results highlight the value of complementary measures of functional impairment.

The purpose of this American Council on Science and Health report is to review issues and sources of uncertainty affecting assessment of potential health risks related to drinking water in the United States. Some background is included on how these issues arose, as is a review of the 1999 National Research Council report (with references to an updated version), to formulate a position based on the current science concerning how much of a risk of adverse health effects actually exists from arsenic in drinking water in the United States. ACSH concludes that there is clear evidence that chronic exposure to inorganic arsenic at concentrations of at least several hundred micrograms per liter may cause: (1) cancer of skin, bladder, lung (and possibly several other internal organs, including kidney, liver, and prostate), and (2) noncancer effects, including classic cutaneous manifestations that are distinctive and characteristic of chronic arsenic poisoning (diffuse or spotted hyperpigmentation and palmar-plantar hyperkeratoses). Noncancer effects may be multisystemic, with some evidence of peripheral vascular, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and adverse reproductive outcomes. Further study is needed to know if beneficial effects of arsenic in animal studies apply to humans. ACSH concludes that there is little, if any, evidence of a detrimental health effect in humans from inorganic arsenic in drinking water at the current maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 50 microg/L or below, either in the United States or elsewhere. As noted in the 1999 NRC report, "No human studies of sufficient statistical power or scope have examined whether consumption of arsenic in drinking water at the current MCL results in an increased incidence of cancer or noncancer effects" (NRC, 1999, p. 7). Based on our review, described in this article, ACSH finds that the limitations of the epidemiological data available and the state-of-the-science on the mode-of-action of arsenic toxicity, including can cer, are inadequate to support the conclusion that there are adverse health effects in the United States from arsenic in drinking water at or below the limit of 50 microg/L., (Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science (USA))

This paper presents views on the current status of (inorganic) arsenic risk assessment in the United States and recommends research needed to set standards for drinking water. The opinions are those of the Arsenic Task Force of the Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health, which has met periodically since 1991 to study issues related to arsenic risk assessment and has held workshops and international conferences on arsenic. The topic of this paper is made timely by current scientific interest in exposure to and adverse health effects of arsenic in the United States and passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment of 1996, which has provisions for a research program on arsenic and a schedule mandating the EPA to revise the maximum contaminant level of arsenic in drinking water by the year 2001. Our central premise and recommendations are straightforward: the risk of adverse health effects associated with arsenic in drinking water is unknown for low arsenic concentrations found in the United States, such as at the current interim maximum contaminant level of 50 microg/l and below. Arsenic-related research should be directed at answering that question. New epidemiological studies are needed to provide data for reliable dose-response assessments of arsenic and for skin cancer, bladder cancer, or other endpoints to be used by the EPA for regulation. Further toxicological research, along with the observational data from epidemiology, is needed to determine if the dose-response relationship at low levels is more consistent with the current assumption of low-dose linearity or the existence of a practical threshold. Other recommendations include adding foodborne arsenic to the calculation of total arsenic intake, calculation of total arsenic intake, and encouraging cooperative research within the United States and between the United States and affected countries.

The variation in background radiation levels is an important source of information for estimating human risks associated with low-level exposure to ionizing radiation. Several studies conducted in the United States, correlating mortality rates for cancer with estimated background radiation levels, found an unexpected inverse relationship. Such results have been interpreted as suggesting that low levels of ionizing radiation may actually confer some benefit. An environmental factor strongly correlated with background radiation is altitude. Since there are important physiological adaptations associated with breathing thinner air, such changes may themselves influence risk. We therefore fit models that simultaneously incorporated altitude and background radiation as predictors of mortality. The negative correlations with background radiation seen for mortality from arteriosclerotic heart disease and cancers of the lung, the intestine, and the breast disappeared or became positive once altitude was included in the models. By contrast, the significant negative correlations with altitude persisted with adjustment for radiation. Interpretation of these results is problematic, but recent evidence implicating reactive forms of oxygen in carcinogenesis and atherosclerosis may be relevant. We conclude that the cancer correlational studies carried out in the United States using vital statistics data do not in themselves demonstrate a lack of carcinogenic effect of low radiation levels, and that reduced oxygen pressure of inspired air may be protective against certain causes of death.