By K. Viswanath, Tiffany E. Taylor, and Holly G. Rhodes, Editors; Committee on Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Our current information ecosystem makes it easier for misinformation about science to spread and harder for people to figure out what is scientifically accurate. Proactive solutions are needed to address misinformation about science, an issue of public concern given its potential to cause harm at individual, community, and societal levels. Improving access to high-quality scientific information can fill information voids that exist for topics of interest to people, reducing the likelihood of exposure to and uptake of misinformation about science. Misinformation is commonly perceived as a matter of bad actors maliciously misleading the public, but misinformation about science arises both intentionally and inadvertently and from a wide range of sources.

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS. 2024. 409p.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Health Care Services; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on Unequal Treatment Revisited: The Current State of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care; Georges C. Benjamin, Jennifer E. DeVoe, Francis K. Amankwah, and Sharyl J. Nass, Editors

Racial and ethnic inequities in health and health care impact individual well-being, contribute to millions of premature deaths, and cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Addressing these inequities is vital to improving the health of the nation’s most disadvantaged communities—and will also help to achieve optimal health for all. In 2003, the Institute of Medicine examined these inequities in Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care.

Because disparities persist, the National Academies convened an expert committee with support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The committee’s report reviews the major drivers of health care disparities, provides insight into successful and unsuccessful interventions, identifies gaps in the evidence base, and makes recommendations to advance health equity.

National Academies. 2024. 375p..

WICKERSON, GRACE; BURTON, AUTUMN

The passage that follows includes several links embedded in the original text. From the document: "From August 2023 to March 2024, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) talked with +'85 experts' to source '20 high-demand opportunity areas for ready policy innovation' and '65 policy ideas.' In response, FAS recruited '33 authors to work on +18 policy memos' through our 'Extreme Heat Policy Sprint' from January 2024 to April 2024, 'generating an additional +100 policy recommendations' to address extreme heat. Our experts' full recommendations will be published in April 2024; this report previews key findings. In total, FAS has collected '+165 recommendations for 34 offices and/or agencies.' Key opportunity areas are described below and link out to a set of featured recommendations. The accompanying spreadsheet includes the '165 policy ideas' developed through expert engagement. [...] America is rapidly barreling towards its next hottest summer on record. While we still lack national strategy, states, counties, and cities around the country have taken up the charge of addressing extreme heat in their communities and are experimenting on the fly. [...] While state and local governments can make significant advances, national extreme heat resilience requires a 'whole of government' federal approach, as it intersects health, energy, housing, homeland and national security, international relations, and many more policy domains. The federal government plays a critical role in scaling up heat resilience interventions through research and development, regulations, standards, guidance, funding sources, and other policy levers. 'But what are the transformational policy opportunities for action?'"

FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS. JUN, 2024. 34p.

By C. James Watson , Genevra L. Stone, Daniel L. Overbeek1, Takuyo Chiba & Michele M. Burns

The rules of fair play in sport generally prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

oversees global antidoping regulations and testing for elite athletes participating in Olympic sports. Efforts to enforce anti doping policies are complicated by the diverse and evolving compounds and strate gies employed by athletes to gain a competitive edge. Now between the uniquely proximate 2021 Tokyo and 2022 Beijing Olympic Games, we discuss WADA’s efforts to prevent PED use during the modern Olympic Games. Then, we review the major PED classes with a focus on pathophysiology, complexities of antidoping testing, and relevant toxicitiies. Providers from diverse practice environments are likely to care for patients using PEDs for a vari ety of reasons and levels of sport; these providers should be aware of common PED classes and their risks.

Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume291, Issue2, 2022

By Abby Chin

At the Olympic Games Rio de Janeiro 2016, world champion and Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova walked into the Olympics Aquatics Stadium not to cheers, but to the sound of boos.2 The crowd, and many athletes, condemned Efimova as a drug-using outcast who should not be allowed to compete in the Games. At the Rio Olympic Games, Efimova was one of seven swimmers from the Russian Federation who were formerly banned from the competition due to previously failed drug tests and the “World Anti-Doping Agency’s investigation into state-sponsored doping.”3 However, after an intense arbitration process, Efimova and her teammates were approved for competition. Efimova’s doping dispute began in 2013 when she received her first positive drug test and served a sixteen-month suspension.4 Next, in 2016, she tested positive for meldonium—the substance at issue for the alleged Russian state-sponsored doping.5 However, because meldonium did not officially become a banned substance until January 2016, many athletes claimed that, although they were no longer actively taking it, they were still testing positive because traces of meldonium were left in their system.6 This left a question about who would decide an athlete’s future competition eligibility after a positive test. While many different agencies were involved, Efimova’s positive drug test came from the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA). A positive test usually leads to a suspension, which athletes can appeal through the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS). However, because the positive test results occurred in an Olympic year—and with the was scrutiny of the entire Russian Olympic Federation—the International Olympic Committee (IOC) would also influence the outcome of the doping investigation.7 In its press release, the IOC stated athletes who had served prior suspensions unrelated to meldonium would be banned.8 If meldonium was the athlete’s first offense, it was up to the individual federations governing each sport to decide the fate of each individual athlete.9 However, the IOC decision conflicted with CAS precedent, which allowed athletes to return to competition with a clean slate after serving their entire suspension for a positive drug test.10 As a result, there was confusion and uncertainty as to whether these Olympic athletes could compete.11 Efimova appealed to the CAS, requesting to be reinstated to compete as she had already served her suspension. The CAS, believing it was inappropriate to ban athletes like Efimova for having already served suspension, granted the appeal.12 Efimova was able to compete in Rio despite the backlash of many other competitors and nations.13 Whether Efimova deserved the backlash, it became clear there was a significant problem with the uncertainty and lack of knowledge as to the appropriate process for punishing athletes who tested positive. Through the different rulings of the three major governing bodies involved, Efimova was placed under rigid scrutiny, in part because people did not understand the disciplinary process, her right to an appeal, and her right to receive relief from her sanction. This Note will examine the effect of the governing bodies, specifically during an Olympic year, on athletes involved in doping disputes and suggest a more streamlined arbitration process for the governing bodies to use when determining the eligibility of athletes in doping disputes. Currently, the arbitration process lacks transparency and efficiency because of the arbitrator selection process, the costs associated with bringing a dispute in front of an appeals panel, and the mandatory nature of arbitration in international sports. Hence, to create more just dispute outcomes, the arbitration process should become more informal, and athletes should be given the option for a final appeal. Section II of this Note discusses the different governing bodies and their processes for dealing with doping disputes. Section III demonstrates how the different governing bodies work around each other when handling disputes. This section also analyzes the positive and negative impacts of the way in which governing bodies work together. Section IV explores Efimova’s doping dispute in depth to provide an example of the arbitration process. Section V specifically describes the current concerns with the CAS arbitration process and ultimately offers a possible solution for a better-streamlined dispute process, such as modifying the current arbitration and arbitrator selection proceedings or allowing for an appeal from a CAS arbitrator decision.

OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 33:3 2018]

By Gillian Shorter, Phoebe McKenna-Plumley, Kerry Campbell, Jolie Keemink, and Benjamin Scher, et al.

Overdose prevention centres can also be referred to as drug consumption rooms, safe consumption/injecting/smoking sites, and/or other relevant names. These names can reflect legal distinctions e.g. in Canada, which relate to permanency or function of the site. There are currently over 200 OPCs worldwide in 17 countries, primarily in urban areas, and they cater to a range of drug types and visitor numbers.

Overdose prevention centres can be integrated facilities with other services, specialised sites which are primarily an OPC with limited other services, mobile sites, or tent/other temporary sites. Collaboration and consultation before and after a service opens is central to successful OPCs. Potential and actual OPC users should be consulted on the design of and running of sites to support their use. Collaboration and consultation involving members of the local community, businesses, police, elected representatives, public health, or other local authority staff with OPC staff and operators can smooth over any issues before and after a service opens. Belfast, Queen's University, 2023. 188p.

pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/530629435/DS_OPC_Report_V4.pdf

By Thomas Coyne; Sean Quitzau; and Joseph W. Arnett

This publication of Zero Returns to Homelessness, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the Justice Center of the Council of State Governments, provides a reference guide on housing access for practitioners, including state leaders working to address homelessness as part of their Reentry 2030 goals. It details best practices and strategies around reentry housing, building from four essential steps that have worked in neighborhoods around the country as leaders have expanded housing opportunities for people reentering their communities: Collaborate, Assess, Connect, and Expand. Every year, tens of thousands of people experience homelessness as they return to their communities from incarceration. Gaps and barriers, such as housing policies that bar people with conviction histories from renting, persist that reduce even the limited amount of housing people can access when returning. Because of this, people returning from incarceration are almost 10 times more likely to experience homelessness and more often cycle through public systems designed to respond to emergencies and not provide long-term solutions. However, in states such as Ohio, Connecticut, and Utah, communities are making strides in preventing homelessness when people return from incarceration. These communities are working toward a bold, new vision—Zero Returns to Homelessness—which aims to ensure that all returning residents have access to a safe, permanent place to call home.

New York: The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, 2024. 65p.

By Monica Deza, Thanh Lu, Johanna Catherine Maclean, and Alberto Ortega

  We study the impact of losing health insurance on criminal activity by leveraging one of the most substantial Medicaid disenrollments in U.S. history, which occurred in Tennessee in 2005 and lead to 190,000 non–elderly and non–disabled adults without dependents unexpectedly losing coverage. Using police agency–level data and a difference–in–differences approach, we find that this mass insurance loss increased total crime rates with particularly strong effects for non violent crime. We test for several potential mechanisms and find that our results may be explained by economic stability and access to healthcare. 

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. 2024, 56pg

By Sara Waring,  Adrianna Fusco-Maguire,  Caitlin Bromley,  Bess Conway,  Susan Giles,  Freya O’Brien &  Paige Monaghan 

Some police forces are investing resources into dedicated missing person teams (MPTs) to improve risk assessment and responsibility sharing across partner agencies. This study used police records and interviews with representatives from police and partner agencies in one UK region to provide the first systematic evaluation of the impact of implementing a dedicated MPT on the response to missing children. Results revealed a reduction in reports and change in risk assessment practices post implementation, along with suggestions that the MPT brought about more of a child-centred approach, a pushing back of responsibility to care providers, and greater personalised communication with children and care providers. However, improvements needed to be made to intra- and inter-agency communication, and consideration of resources across shift patterns. Findings pose important implications for informing decisions regarding allocation of finite resources and improving multiagency response to missing children.

Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, Dec/ 2023.

By Scarlet Neath,  Rashad James,  Charlotte Resing, 

Nationally, at least 12% of all police arrests are for possessing, selling, or making illicit drugs. Despite using and selling illicit drugs at similar rates as White people do, Black people are more likely to be arrested, incarcerated, and reported to law enforcement by medical professionals for substance use. Decades of criminalizing certain substances as a crime-control tactic has failed to achieve its goal of eliminating drug use and instead contributed to profound stigma and fear of punishment that prevents people from accessing treatment and support. It has also resulted in the proliferation of smaller, more potent versions of illicit drugs–like fentanyl–which have exacerbated the opioid crisis in recent years. In 2021, drug overdose deaths reached a record high of 106,699 people, and overdose from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl is now a leading cause of death for adults ages 18 to 45. Because of systemic inequities, including in health care access and the criminal legal system, Black and Native people are experiencing even higher increases in overdose rates than White people are. A public safety approach to substance use, in contrast, means ending the widespread, racist, arbitrary, and ineffective 

criminalization of certain drugs. It requires fully investing instead in equitable and accessible systems of care to prevent and reduce the harms associated with substance use, including consistently offering services that recognize continued, moderated use as a common and acceptable feature of recovery. Laws prohibiting the use of certain drugs (including alcohol at one time) have been repeatedly enacted, fueled by racist narratives about the dangerous behavior of particular groups of people due to their substance use, including German, Irish, and Chinese immigrants; Black men; and communists. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created the current framework stipulating which substances are deemed illicit under federal law. It also established categories for regulating substances based on the perception about potential for abuse and whether the substance has any medical benefits. Notably, alcohol and tobacco were excluded despite high potential for dependency. The enforcement of drug laws increased dramatically after 1971, when President Nixon declared the war on drugs,10 which an advisor later said was an effort to criminalize and vilify Black people and war protesters. After this announcement, the government embarked on a decades-long trend of prioritizing and increasing funding for enforcement that is still ongoing. For example, the U.S. government spent approximately $2.8 billion on drug enforcement in 1981, adjusted for inflation, compared to $19.3 billion in 2023. This immense federal funding has enabled wide and inequitable enforcement of drug laws by local law enforcement agencies, funneling millions of people–especially Black and Latino men–into carceral systems and saddled them with criminal records that affect their future eligibility for housing, employment, voting, and education while undermining community health In 2022, law enforcement made more than 600,000 arrests for drug possession nationally. Black people are almost twice as likely as White people to be arrested for drug offenses. The war on drugs is widely recognized as a primary contributor to mass incarceration, racial disparities in incarceration rates, and militarized policing tactics. .From 1980 to 2011, the average federal prison sentence for a drug offense increased 36%, and similarly, the state incarceration rate for drug offenses increased nearly tenfold.  As of 2019, Black people were 3.6 times more likely than White people to be incarcerated in state prisons for a drug offense.  In addition to being a primary driver of mass incarceration, these efforts have failed to eliminate drug use–and its associated harms–from our society. Instead, over the past several decades of heavy enforcement, illegal drug prices have declined and the annual number of overdose deaths has risen fivefold since 1999. From 2019 to 2020, the latest year of data, drug overdose rates rose 22% among White people, 39% among Native people, and 44% among Black people. These disparities are not fully explained by differences in substance use patterns. Instead, Black communities face heightened barriers to accessing care due to reasons including criminalization, mistrust of the medical system, and lack of access to certain evidence-based treatments.  According to recent data, Black people who died from overdose had the lowest rate of previous substance use treatment.

West Hollywood, CA: Center for Policing Equity , 2024. 40p. 

By, Louis Favril,, Josiah D Rich, Jake Hard, and Seena Fazel

   Summary Background People who experience incarceration are characterised by poor health profiles. Clarification of the disease burden in the prison population can inform service and policy development. We aimed to synthesise and assess the evidence regarding the epidemiology of mental and physical health conditions among people in prisons worldwide. Methods In this umbrella review, five bibliographic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Global Health) were systematically searched from inception to identify meta-analyses published up to Oct 31, 2023, which examined the prevalence or incidence of mental and physical health conditions in general prison populations. We excluded meta-analyses that examined health conditions in selected or clinical prison populations. Prevalence data were extracted from published reports and study authors were contacted for additional information. Estimates were synthesised and stratified by sex, age, and country income level. The robustness of the findings was assessed in terms of heterogeneity, excess significance bias, small-study effects, and review quality. The study protocol was pre registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023404827. Findings Our search of the literature yielded 1909 records eligible for screening. 1736 articles were excluded and 173 full-text reports were examined for eligibility. 144 articles were then excluded due to not meeting inclusion criteria, which resulted in 29 meta-analyses eligible for inclusion. 12 of these were further excluded because they examined the same health condition. We included data from 17 meta-analyses published between 2002 and 2023. In adult men and women combined, the 6-month prevalence was 11·4% (95% CI 9·9–12·8) for major depression, 9·8% (6·8–13·2) for post-traumatic stress disorder, and 3·7% (3·2–4·1) for psychotic illness. On arrival to prison, 23·8% (95% CI 21·0–26·7) of people met diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorder and 38·9% (31·5–46·2) for drug use disorder. Half of those with major depression or psychotic illness had a comorbid substance use disorder. Infectious diseases were also common; 17·7% (95% CI 15·0–20·7) of people were antibody-positive for hepatitis C virus, with lower estimates (ranging between 2·6% and 5·2%) found for hepatitis B virus, HIV, and tuberculosis. Meta-regression analyses indicated significant differences in prevalence by sex and country income level, albeit not consistent across health conditions. The burden of non-communicable chronic diseases was only examined in adults aged 50 years and older. Overall, the quality of the evidence was limited by high heterogeneity and small study effects. Interpretation People in prisons have a specific pattern of morbidity that represents an opportunity for public health to address. In particular, integrating prison health within the national public health system, adequately resourcing primary care and mental health services, and improving linkage with post-release health services could affect public health and safety. Population-based longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the extent to which incarceration affects health.

Lancet Public Health 2024; 9: e250–60

By Chris O'Leary, Rob Ralphs, Jennifer Stevenson, Andrew Smith, Jordan Harrison, Zsolt Kiss, Harry Armitage

Background

Homelessness is a traumatic experience, and can have a devastating effect on those experiencing it. People who are homeless often face significant barriers when accessing public services, and have often experienced adverse childhood events, extreme social disadvantage, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, neglect, low self-esteem, poor physical and mental health, and much lower life expectancy compared to the general population. Rates of problematic substance use are disproportionately high, with many using drugs and alcohol to deal with the stress of living on the street, to keep warm, or to block out memories of previous abuse or trauma. Substance dependency can also create barriers to successful transition to stable housing.

Objectives

To understand the effectiveness of different substance use interventions for adults experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

The primary source of studies for was the 4th edition of the Homelessness Effectiveness Studies Evidence and Gaps Maps (EGM). Searches for the EGM were completed in September 2021. Other potential studies were identified through a call for grey evidence, hand-searching key journals, and unpacking relevant systematic reviews.

Selection Criteria

Eligible studies were impact evaluations that involved some comparison group. We included studies that tested the effectiveness of substance use interventions, and measured substance use outcomes, for adults experiencing homelessness in high income countries.

Data Collection and Analysis

Descriptive characteristics and statistical information in included studies were coded and checked by at least two members of the review team. Studies selected for the review were assessed for confidence in the findings. Standardised effect sizes were calculated and, if a study did not provide sufficient raw data for the calculation of an effect size, author(s) were contacted to obtain these data. We used random-effects meta-analysis and robust-variance estimation procedures to synthesise effect sizes. If a study included multiple effects, we carried out a critical assessment to determine (even if only theoretically) whether the effects are likely to be dependent. Where dependent effects were identified, we used robust variance estimation to determine whether we can account for these. Where effect sizes were converted from a binary to continuous measure (or vice versa), we undertook a sensitivity analysis by running an additional analysis with these studies omitted. We also assessed the sensitivity of results to inclusion of non-randomised studies and studies classified as low confidence in findings. All included an assessment of statistical heterogeneity. Finally, we undertook analysis to assess whether publication bias was likely to be a factor in our findings. For those studies that we were unable to include in meta-analysis, we have provided a narrative synthesis of the study and its findings.

Main Results

We included 48 individual papers covering 34 unique studies. The studies covered 15, 255 participants, with all but one of the studies being from the United States and Canada. Most papers were rated as low confidence (n = 25, or 52%). By far the most common reason for studies being rated as low confidence was high rates of attrition and/or differential attrition of study participants, that fell below the What Works Clearinghouse liberal attrition standard. Eleven of the included studies were rated as medium confidence and 12 studies as high confidence. The interventions included in our analysis were more effective in reducing substance use than treatment as usual, with an overall effect size of –0.11 SD (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.27, 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the results were sensitive to the removal of low confidence studies (−0.21 SD, 95% CI [−0.59, 0.17] − 6 studies, 17 effect sizes), the removal of quasi-experimental studies (−0.14 SD, 95% CI [−0.30, 0.02] − 14 studies, 41 effect sizes) and the removal of studies where an effect size had been converted from a binary to a continuous outcome (−0.08 SD, 95% CI [−0.31, 0.15] − 10 studies, 31 effect sizes). This suggests that the findings are sensitive to the inclusion of lower quality studies, although unusually the average effect increases when we removed low confidence studies. The average effect for abstinence-based interventions compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) service provision was –0.28 SD (95% CI, −0.65, 0.09) (6 studies, 15 effect sizes), and for harm reduction interventions compared to a TAU service provision is close to 0 at 0.03 SD (95% CI, −0.08, 0.14) (9 studies, 30 effect sizes). The confidence intervals for both estimates are wide and crossing zero. For both, the comparison groups are primarily abstinence-based, with the exception of two studies where the comparison group condition was unclear. We found that both Assertative Community Treatment and Intensive Case Management were no better than treatment as usual, with average effect on substance use of 0.03 SD, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.13] and –0.47 SD, 95% CI [−0.72, −0.21] 0.05 SD, 95% CI [−0.28, 0.39] respectively. These findings are consistent with wider research, and it is important to note that we only examined the effect on substance use outcomes (these interventions can be effective in terms of other outcomes). We found that CM interventions can be effective in reducing substance use compared to treatment as usual, with an average effect of –0.47 SD, 95% CI (−0.72, −0.21). All of these results need to be considered in light of the quality of the underlying evidence. There were six further interventions where we undertook narrative synthesis. These syntheses suggest that Group Work, Harm Reduction Psychotherapy, and Therapeutic Communities are effective in reducing substance use, with mixed results found for Motivational Interviewing and Talking Therapies (including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy). The narrative synthesis suggested that Residential Rehabilitation was no better than treatment as usual in terms of reducing substance use for our population of interest.

Authors' Conclusions

Although our analysis of harm reduction versus treatment as usual, abstinence versus treatment as usual, and harm reduction versus abstinence suggests that these different approaches make little real difference to the outcomes achieved in comparison to treatment as usual. The findings suggest that some individual interventions are more effective than others. The overall low quality of the primary studies suggests that further primary impact research could be beneficial.

Campbell Systematic Reviews, Volume 20, Issue , June 2024, 65 pages

By Daniel Rosenblum, Jeffrey Ondocsin, Sarah G. Mars, Dennis Cauchon, Daniel Ciccarone

We investigate the relationship between the supply of methamphetamine and overdose death risk in Ohio. Ohio and the overall US have experienced a marked increase in overdose deaths from methamphetamine combined with fentanyl over the last decade. The increasing use of methamphetamine may be increasing the risk of overdose death. However, if people are using it to substitute away from more dangerous synthetic opioids, it may reduce the overall risk of overdose death.

Methods

Ohio’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation’s crime lab data include a detailed list of the content of drug samples from law enforcement seizures, which are used as a proxy for drug supply. We use linear regressions to estimate the relationship between the proportion of methamphetamine in lab samples and unintentional drug overdose death rates from January 2015 through September 2021.

Results

Relatively more methamphetamine in crime lab data in a county-month has either no statistically significant relationship with overdose death rates (in small and medium population counties) or a negative and statistically significant relationship with overdose death rates (in large population counties). Past overdose death rates do not predict future increases in methamphetamine in crime lab data.

Conclusions

The results are consistent with a relatively higher supply of methamphetamine reducing the general risk of overdose death, possibly due to substitution away from more dangerous synthetic opioids. However, the supply of methamphetamine appears unrelated to the past illicit drug risk environment.

  Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports, (2024), 31 pages

By Katherine Sorrels, Lora Arduser, Danielle Bessett, Vanessa Carbonell, Michelle McGowan, and Edward Wallace

In early March of 2020, Americans watched with uncertain terror as the novel coronavirus pandemic unfolded. One week later, Ohio announced its first confirmed cases. Just one year later, the state had over a million cases and 18,000 Ohioans had died. What happened in that first pandemic year is not only a story of a public health disaster, but also a story of social disparities and moral dilemmas, of lives and livelihoods turned upside down, and of institutions and safety nets stretched to their limits. Ohio under COVID tells the human story of COVID in Ohio, America’s bellwether state. Scholars and practitioners examine the pandemic response from multiple angles, and contributors from numerous walks of life offer moving first-person reflections. Two themes emerge again and again: how the pandemic revealed a deep tension between individual autonomy and the collective good, and how it exacerbated social inequalities in a state divided along social, economic, and political lines. Chapters address topics such as mask mandates, ableism, prisons, food insecurity, access to reproductive health care, and the need for more Black doctors. The book concludes with an interview with Dr. Amy Acton, the state’s top public health official at the time COVID hit Ohio. Ohio under COVID captures the devastating impact of the pandemic, both in the public discord it has unearthed and in the unfair burdens it has placed on the groups least equipped to bear them.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2023, 341pg

By Wojciech Kaczkowski

Suicide, including firearm suicide, remains a substantial public health concern in the United States. During the previous 2 decades, overall suicide rates and firearm suicide rates have risen by approximately one third, approaching 50,000 overall suicides during 2022, including approximately 27,000 firearm suicides (1). Firearm suicides account for approximately one half of all suicides, and this proportion has been increasing (2,3). This analysis includes national firearm suicide data from 2019 through the end of 2022, categorized by race and ethnicity, presented both annually and by month (or quarterly) to track subannual changes.

United States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2019-2022, 2pg