Search

Objective: A severe staff shortage and a dearth of professionals from underrepresented backgrounds in the public health workforce are contributing to poor health outcomes in the United States. Schools and programs can mitigate these problems by admitting more graduate public health students overall and from underrepresented backgrounds. We identified predictors of foundational graduate public health course grades and graduate grade point average (GPA), sharing evidence to remove application factors that are admission barriers and do not predict student outcomes., Methods: We conducted a linear regression analysis on demographic and academic factors from 564 graduate public health applications for students at the University at Buffalo who received their degree from January 1, 2016, to February 1, 2021, analyzing age, race and ethnicity, sex, income, undergraduate degree, verbal and quantitative Graduate Record Examination (GRE) percentiles, and undergraduate GPA. Outcomes were grades in foundational public health courses and cumulative graduate GPA., Results: Undergraduate GPA was the best predictor of graduate public health student success, explaining nearly 7% of foundational public health course grades and 29% of graduate GPA. Higher undergraduate GPA contributed to higher course grades and graduate GPA. GRE scores explained <1% of student outcomes., Conclusions: Our findings add to the growing body of research showing that standardized test scores may not predict graduate student outcomes and provide further evidence for the field of public health to consider removing this admission barrier. By doing so, institutions could admit more students to graduate public health programs who can bring needed skills to the market, further diversifying the workforce and public health faculty, to better meet population health needs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Purpose: The Consortium of Student-Led Eye Clinics (CSLEC), founded in 2021, administered a comprehensive survey to document the types of services, most common diagnoses, and follow-up care protocols offered by student-led free vision screening programs (SLFVSP) in the United States., Methods: An 81-question institutional review board (IRB)-approved survey was administered to student-led vision screening eye clinics from October 1, 2022 to February 24, 2023., Results: Sixteen SLFVSPs were included in the final analysis, of which 81% (n = 13) conducted variations of fundoscopic examinations and 75% (n = 12) measured intraocular pressure. Cataracts and diabetic retinopathy were reported as the most frequent diagnoses by the majority of SLFVSPs (n = 9, 56%); non-mobile SLFVSPs more commonly reported cataract as a frequent diagnosis (P < 0.05). Most patients screened at participating programs were uninsured or met federal poverty guidelines. Prescription glasses were offered by 56% of the programs (n = 9). SLFVSPs that directly scheduled follow-up appointments reported higher attendance rates (66.5%) than those that only sent referrals (20%). Transportation was the most cited barrier for follow-up appointment attendance., Conclusions: SLFVSPs, one community vision screening initiative subtype, vary significantly in scope and capabilities of identifying vision threatening disease. The follow-up infrastructure is not uniformly robust and represents a key target for improving care delivery to at-risk populations., Translational Relevance: The CSLEC aims to develop a consensus-based standardization for the scope of screening services, offer guidelines for diagnostic criteria, promote real-time data stewardship, and identify means to improve follow-up care mechanisms in member communities.

Objective: To assess the regulations on Cannabis advertising across U.S. states for variation and compare with Canadian federal policies, for the purpose of identifying opportunities to protect the public, especially the youth and other vulnerable populations, from health risks. Methods: We reviewed Health Canada's Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations to identify prohibited marketing and advertising activities for cannabis products. The Canadian guidelines (where cannabis is legal for both medical and nonmedical use) were compared with regulations in the 36 U.S. states where cannabis is legalized for medical and/or adult (e.g., recreational) use. Results: Cannabis advertising regulations vary greatly and have little consistency across the U.S. states. Most states do not address many of the cannabis advertising activities that are prohibited in Canada. Among the 31 states that do allow some form of cannabis advertising, 74% explicitly prohibit targeting or appealing to minors and 68% prohibit making false or misleading claims. There are 11 illegal advertising tactics in Canada, such as glamorization and testimonials, that were not specifically discussed in any of the U.S. state policies. Conclusion: The lack of consistent marketing guidelines could expose youth and vulnerable populations to cannabis advertisements; more widespread or federal guidance is needed.

Introduction: Cannabis products containing delta-8-THC became widely available in most of the United States in late 2020 and rapidly became a significant source of revenue for hemp processing companies, especially in states where use of delta-9-THC remains illegal or requires professional authorization for medical use. Scientific research on the use of delta-8-THC is scarce, previous clinical studies included a combined total of 14 participants, leading some state governments to prohibit it until its properties and effects are better understood. Methods: Researchers developed an online survey for delta-8-THC consumers addressing a broad range of issues regarding delta-8-THC, including use for the treatment of health and medical conditions. Previous survey studies on the medical use of cannabis and cannabis products informed survey components. Results: Patterns of delta-8-THC use had both similarities with and differences from the use of delta-9-THC cannabis and products. Administration methods were primarily edibles (64%) and vaping concentrates (48%). About half of the participants (51%) used delta-8-THC to treat a range of health and medical conditions, primarily anxiety or panic attacks (69%), stress (52%), depression or bipolar disorder (46%), and chronic pain (41%). Participants compared delta-8-THC very favorably with both delta-9-THC and pharmaceutical drugs and reported substantial levels of substitution for both. Most participants did not inform their primary care provider of their delta-8-THC use (78%) and were not confident of their primary care provider's ability to integrate medical cannabis into their treatment (70%). Knowledge of effective dosages was low, and participants' knowledge of delta-8-THC was primarily from the Internet and their own experiences. Conclusion: Harm reduction is a central component of public health. Although the legal environment is becoming more restrictive for delta-8-THC in comparison to delta-9-THC, results suggest that delta-8-THC may be equally effective for desired purposes of cannabis use and lower in undesirable or adverse effects. All policies and practices should be informed by empirical evidence. Considerable research will be needed to systematically verify the patterns reported by participants, and collaborations among academic researchers, government, and the cannabis industry may be valuable in developing the knowledge base for delta-8-THC and other cannabinoids.

Introduction: As more states allow for medical and nonregistered adult cannabis (i.e., marijuana) use, ensuring proper utilization should be a priority. Standardized labeling for foods and pharmaceutical drugs promotes consumer safety. This study investigated cannabis product labeling requirements in the United States. Materials and Methods: Researchers compiled the requirements for cannabis product labeling across 31 U.S. states with medical cannabis programs from state regulatory publications. Results: Information requirements ranged considerably by U.S. state. All states required delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol content and manufacturer contact information, >80% of states required the batch number, health risks, production tracking, a cannabis symbol, cannabidiol content, children disclaimer, and an impairment disclaimer. There appeared to be a random pattern in requirements for other specific items. The relationships between the extent of cannabis product labeling requirements and the number of years that a state had a medical cannabis program or whether states allowed nonregistered adult use cannabis were not significant, although there was a trend for nonregistered adult use states to require more recommended label attributes. Conclusion: A comprehensive framework for cannabis use is needed to protect the public, maximize benefits, and minimize harms and risks. Standardization of cannabis product labeling requirements would benefit consumers and promote safer and more effective usage of cannabis products.