Publications on Chronic Disease in Coal Dependent Communities in Central Appalachia

CONTEXT: Agency and nonprofit reports have traditionally been the source of health information in Appalachia. Recently, publications have appeared in the literature associating coal mining, specifically mountain top mining, with numerous chronic health conditions spurring debate among environmental and industry interest groups. Publication quantity and quality were objectively assessed. This article reports on a literature review and analysis of publications on chronic disease in coal dependent communities in Appalachia. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a review and analysis of original, peer reviewed research publications on chronic health conditions in communities dependent on coal mining with a focus on central Appalachia and report on publication and research quantity and quality. DATA SOURCES: Thorough searches were conducted using PubMed, EBSCO, and CiNAHL computerized databases to identify original, peer-reviewed research articles addressing ‘Appalachia’, ‘health’ and ‘coal’. STUDY SELECTION: The computerized database search identified original research publications relevant to chronic health conditions (heart disease, lung disease, kidney disease, cancers, diabetes, obesity, etc.) and coal mining in central Appalachia. DATA EXTRACTION: Quantitative measures of the literature review provided information on author collaborations, year of publication, frequency of publication by contributing authors, etc. Journal impact factors were noted and other objective qualitative criteria were considered. DATA SYNTHESIS: Over 60 publications relevant to mining with 38 publications specific to Appalachia and health were identified. The publications were reviewed relative to relevance and article quality i.e., current, original research, application to central Appalachia and discussions of chronic human health and coal mining. Over the past five years most of the publications relevant to chronic disease and coal mining in central Appalachia resulted from a research group with a single common author. CONCLUSIONS: Science based evidence is needed and data must be provided by independent researchers from various disciplines of study to share different perspectives on how to alleviate the longstanding health disparities in central Appalachia. Studies will require the application of sound methodologies to validate the findings and support future interventions

Systematic review with meta‐analysis: race‐specific effects of alcohol and tobacco on the risk of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/100284/1/apt12514.pd

Do automated digital health behaviour change interventions have a positive effect on self-efficacy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2019 Taylor & Francis. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Health Psychology Review on 20/01/2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2019.1705873.Self-efficacy is an important determinant of health behaviour. Digital interventions are a potentially acceptable and cost-effective way of delivering programmes of health behaviour change at scale. Whether behaviour change interventions work to increase self-efficacy in this context is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to identify whether automated digital interventions are associated with positive changes in self-efficacy amongst non-clinical populations for five major health behaviours, and which BCTs are associated with that change. A systematic literature search identified 20 studies (n=5624) that assessed changes in self-efficacy and were included in a random effects meta-analysis. Interventions targeted: healthy eating (k=4), physical activity (k=9), sexual behaviour (k=3), and smoking (k=4). No interventions targeting alcohol use were identified. Overall, interventions had a small, positive effect on self-efficacy (푔 = 0.190, CI [0.078; 0.303]). The effect of interventions on self-efficacy did not differ as a function of health behaviour type (Qbetween = 7.3704 p = 0.061, df = 3). Inclusion of the BCT ‘information about social and environmental consequences’ had a small, negative effect on self-efficacy (Δ푔= - 0.297, Q=7.072, p=0.008). Whilst this review indicates that digital interventions can be used to change self-efficacy, which techniques work best in this context is not clear.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

Empirical Health Law Scholarship: The State of the Field

The last three decades have seen the blossoming of the fields of health law and empirical legal studies and their intersection--empirical scholarship in health law and policy. Researchers in legal academia and other settings have conducted hundreds of studies using data to estimate the effects of health law on accident rates, health outcomes, health care utilization, and costs, as well as other outcome variables. Yet the emerging field of empirical health law faces significant challenges--practical, methodological, and political. The purpose of this Article is to survey the current state of the field by describing commonly used methods, analyzing enabling and inhibiting factors in the production and uptake of this type of research by policymakers, and suggesting ways to increase the production and impact of empirical health law studies. In some areas of inquiry, high-quality research has been conducted, and the findings have been successfully imported into policy debates and used to inform evidence-based lawmaking. In other areas, the level of rigor has been uneven, and the best evidence has not translated effectively into sound policy. Despite challenges and historical shortcomings, empirical health law studies can and should have a substantial impact on regulations designed to improve public safety, increase both access to and quality of health care, and foster technological innovation

Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products

Since the first commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in 1994, the rapidly expanding market of genetically modified seeds has given rise to a multibillion dollar industry. This fast growth, fueled by high expectations towards this new commercial technology and shareholder trust in the involved industry, has provided strong incentives for further research and development of new genetically modified plant varieties. Considering, however, the high financial stakes involved, concerns are raised over the influence that conflicts of interest may place upon articles published in peer-reviewed journals that report on health risks or nutritional value of genetically modified food products. In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light (p = 0.005). While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001). We discuss these results by comparing them to similar studies on conflicts of interest in other areas, such as biomedical sciences, and hypothesize on dynamics that may help explain such connections.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio