Socioeconomic and Racial Disparities in Cancer Risk from Air Toxics in Maryland

We linked risk estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) to racial and socioeconomic characteristics of census tracts in Maryland (2000 Census) to evaluate disparities in estimated cancer risk from exposure to air toxics by emission source category. In Maryland, the average estimated cancer risk across census tracts was highest from on-road sources (50% of total risk from nonbackground sources), followed by nonroad (25%), area (23%), and major sources (< 1%). Census tracts in the highest quartile defined by the fraction of African-American residents were three times more likely to be high risk (> 90th percentile of risk) than those in the lowest quartile (95% confidence interval, 2.0–5.0). Conversely, risk decreased as the proportion of whites increased (p < 0.001). Census tracts in the lowest quartile of socioeconomic position, as measured by various indicators, were 10–100 times more likely to be high risk than those in the highest quartile. We observed substantial risk disparities for on-road, area, and nonroad sources by socioeconomic measure and on-road and area sources by race. There was considerably less evidence of risk disparities from major source emissions. We found a statistically significant interaction between race and income, suggesting a stronger relationship between race and risk at lower incomes. This research demonstrates the utility of NATA for assessing regional environmental justice, identifies an environmental justice concern in Maryland, and suggests that on-road sources may be appropriate targets for policies intended to reduce the disproportionate environmental health burden among economically disadvantaged and minority populations

Lessons Learned for the National Children’s Study from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research

This mini-monograph was developed to highlight the experiences of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research, focusing particularly on several areas of interest for the National Children’s Study. These include general methodologic issues for conducting longitudinal birth cohort studies and community-based participatory research and for measuring air pollution exposures, pesticide exposures, asthma, and neuro-behavioral toxicity. Rather than a detailed description of the studies in each of the centers, this series of articles is intended to provide information on the practicalities of conducting such intensive studies and the lessons learned. This explication of lessons learned provides an outstanding opportunity for the planners of the National Children’s Study to draw on past experiences that provide information on what has and has not worked when studying diverse multiracial and multi-ethnic groups of children with unique urban and rural exposures. The Children’s Centers have addressed and overcome many hurdles in their efforts to understand the link between environmental exposures and health outcomes as well as interactions between exposures and a variety of social and cultural factors. Some of the major lessons learned include the critical importance of long-term studies for assessing the full range of developmental consequences of environmental exposures, recognition of the unique challenges presented at different life stages for both outcome and exposure measurement, and the importance of ethical issues that must be dealt with in a changing medical and legal environment. It is hoped that these articles will be of value to others who are embarking on studies of children’s environmental health

Diversification of U.S. medical schools via affirmative action implementation

BACKGROUND: The diversification of medical school student and faculty bodies via race-conscious affirmative action policy is a societal and legal option for the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled its use constitutional. This paper investigates the implications of affirmative action, particularly race-conscious compared to race-blind admissions policy; explains how alternative programs are generally impractical; and provides a brief review of the history and legality of affirmative action in the United States. DISCUSSION: Selection based solely on academic qualifications such as GPA and MCAT scores does not achieve racial and ethnic diversity in medical school, nor does it adequately predict success as practicing physicians. However, race-conscious preference yields greater practice in underserved and often minority populations, furthers our biomedical research progression, augments health care for minority patients, and fosters an exceptional medical school environment where students are better able to serve an increasingly multicultural society. SUMMARY: The implementation of race-conscious affirmative action results in diversity in medicine. Such diversity has shown increased medical practice in underserved areas, thereby providing better health care for the American people

Incorporating concepts of inequality and inequity into health benefits analysis

BACKGROUND: Although environmental policy decisions are often based in part on both risk assessment information and environmental justice concerns, formalized approaches for addressing inequality or inequity when estimating the health benefits of pollution control have been lacking. Inequality indicators that fulfill basic axioms and agree with relevant definitions and concepts in health benefits analysis and environmental justice analysis can allow for quantitative examination of efficiency-equality tradeoffs in pollution control policies. METHODS: To develop appropriate inequality indicators for health benefits analysis, we provide relevant definitions from the fields of risk assessment and environmental justice and consider the implications. We evaluate axioms proposed in past studies of inequality indicators and develop additional axioms relevant to this context. We survey the literature on previous applications of inequality indicators and evaluate five candidate indicators in reference to our proposed axioms. We present an illustrative pollution control example to determine whether our selected indicators provide interpretable information. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that an inequality indicator for health benefits analysis should not decrease when risk is transferred from a low-risk to high-risk person, and that it should decrease when risk is transferred from a high-risk to low-risk person (Pigou-Dalton transfer principle), and that it should be able to have total inequality divided into its constituent parts (subgroup decomposability). We additionally propose that an ideal indicator should avoid value judgments about the relative importance of transfers at different percentiles of the risk distribution, incorporate health risk with evidence about differential susceptibility, include baseline distributions of risk, use appropriate geographic resolution and scope, and consider multiple competing policy alternatives. Given these criteria, we select the Atkinson index as the single indicator most appropriate for health benefits analysis, with other indicators useful for sensitivity analysis. Our illustrative pollution control example demonstrates how these indices can help a policy maker determine control strategies that are dominated from an efficiency and equality standpoint, those that are dominated for some but not all societal viewpoints on inequality averseness, and those that are on the optimal efficiency-equality frontier, allowing for more informed pollution control policies

Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks

Background: Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally. However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.Methods: We searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.Results: Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.Conclusions: There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination

Integrating Human Health into Environmental Impact Assessment: An Unrealized Opportunity for Environmental Health and Justice

The National Environmental Policy Act and related state laws require many public agencies to analyze and disclose potentially significant environmental effects of agency actions, including effects on human health. In this paper we review the purpose and procedures of environmental impact assessment (EIA), existing regulatory requirements for health effects analysis, and potential barriers to and opportunities for improving integration of human health concerns within the EIA process. We use statutes, regulations, guidelines, court opinions, and empirical research on EIA along with recent case examples of integrated health impact assessment (HIA)/EIA at both the state and federal level. We extract lessons and recommendations for integrated HIA/EIA practice from both existing practices as well as case studies. The case studies demonstrate the adequacy, scope, and power of existing statutory requirements for health analysis within EIA. The following support the success of integrated HIA/EIA: a proponent recognizing EIA as an available regulatory strategy for public health; the openness of the agency conducting the EIA; involvement of public health institutions; and complementary objectives among community stakeholders and health practitioners. We recommend greater collaboration among institutions responsible for EIA, public health institutions, and affected stakeholders along with guidance, resources, and training for integrated HIA/EIA practice