Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States: A Health Equity Perspective

Approximately 13% of African American men are disqualified from voting because of a felony conviction. I used ecosocial theory to identify how institutionalized racism helps perpetuate health disparities and to explore pathways through which felon disenfranchisement laws may contribute to racial health disparities in the United States. From a literature review, I identified 2 potential pathways: (1) inability to alter inequitable public policies that differentially allocate resources for health; and (2) inability to reintegrate into society by voting, which contributes to allostatic load

A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007–2014

BACKGROUND: Policy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of “policy,” “policies,” “law,” “legal,” “legislation,” “ordinance,” “statute,” “regulation,” “regulatory,” “code,” or “rule.” A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics—stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics—were produced. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources. CONCLUSIONS: NIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0367-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OF 2010: Advancing Health Equity for Racially and Ethnically Diverse Populations

Racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care in the United States are persistent and well documented. Communities of color fare far worse than their white counterparts across a range of health indicators: life expectancy, infant mortality, prevalence of chronic diseases, self-rated health status, insurance coverage, and many others.1 As the nation’s population continues to become increasingly diverse—people of color are projected to comprise 54% of the U.S. population by 2050 and more than half of U.S. children by 20232— these disparities are likely to grow if left unaddressed. Recent health care reform legislation, while not a panacea for eliminating health disparities, off ers an important fi rst step and an unprecedented opportunity to improve health equity in the United States. Reforming the nation’s health care system was President Obama’s top domestic priority when he was sworn into offi ce in January 2009. Th e road to reform was complex and unoffi cially started in summer of 2009 when House and Senate committees began to draft legislation. On November 7, 2009, the House of Representatives passed its health care reform proposal, Th e Aff ordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3962). On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its own proposal for health care reform, Th e Patient Protection and Aff ordable Care Act (H.R. 3590)*, which was a merged version of the Senate Finance Committee’s America’s Health Future Act (S.1796) and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions’ Aff ordable Health Choices Act (S. 1697).† Eff orts to reconcile diff erences between the Senate and House bills were stymied by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), a lifelong proponent of health care reform and critical force in securing a proposal’s passage in the Senate. Faced with limited options and expecting that a compromise bill could not get Senate support, the House passed the Senate’s proposal and Th e Patient Protection and Aff ordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-148).‡ On March 30, 2010, the ACA was amended by Th e Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872). According to Congressional Budget Offi ce (CBO) estimates, the ACA, as reconciled by H.R. 4872, will reduce the defi cit by $143 billion over the next decade and decrease the number of non-elderly uninsured by 32 million, leaving 23 million uninsured— approximately one-third of whom would be undocumented immigrants.3 Th is report provides a comprehensive review of general and specifi c ACA provisions with the potential to signifi cantly improve health and health care for millions of diverse populations and their communities. Th e narrative that follows identifi es these provisions, discusses why they are important, and considers challenges that may lie ahead in implementing them. We have organized this presentation in three major sections. Th e next section discusses provisions that explicitly address health disparities, such as those concerning data collection by race/ethnicity, workforce diversity, cultural competence, health disparities research, health disparities initiatives in prevention, and health equity in health insurance reform, and discusses their implications for racially and ethnically diverse communities. Section III describes general provisions, including health insurance reforms, access to care, quality improvement, cost containment, public health and social determinants of health, all of which are likely to have major implications for diverse communities. An accompanying appendix identifi es these provisions, provides a timetable and, where identifi ed in the legislation, the federal agencies responsible for implementation, as well as allocations as of June 30, 2010. Section IV discusses issues that will be critical in realizing the full potential of health care reform and highlights questions and directions for the future, particularly in context of important priorities for reducing racial/ethnic health disparities that were left unaddressed

Local Health Departments’ Level of Engagement in Population Mental Health Promotion

Background: Mental health conditions are highly prevalent in the U.S. and are associated with physical health problems. Federal initiatives recognize mental health as a public health priority, and local health departments (LHDs) have been identified as partners to promote population mental health. Little is known, however, about the extent to which LHDs address mental health or how LHD officials perceive mental health as a public health concern. Purpose: To describe the cumulative level of LHDs’ engagement in activities to address population mental health and explore how LHD officials perceive their roles in promoting it. Methods: Module 2 of the 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments Study (N=505) was used to develop a cumulative measure of LHD engagement in mental health activities. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to describe LHDs’ level of mental health activity and identify associated LHD characteristics. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 LHD officials, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: Over half (55.8%) of LHDs performed ≥1 mental health activities, and 21.2% performed ≥4. LHDs that provided primary care services were most engaged in mental health activities, with 30.4% performing ≥4 and 18.2% performing ≥6. LHD officials perceived mental health as a public health issue and felt community pressure to address it, but encountered barriers related to resources and organizational boundaries. Implications: LHDs might benefit from quality improvement and information sharing resources focused on population mental health promotion. Research should examine LHDs relationships with behavioral health departments and roles within broader social service systems

Measures of outer setting constructs for implementation research: a systematic review and analysis of psychometric quality

Background: Despite their influence, outer setting barriers (e.g., policies, financing) are an infrequent focus of implementation research. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and assess the psychometric properties of measures of outer setting used in behavioral and mental health research. Methods: Data collection involved (a) search string generation, (b) title and abstract screening, (c) full-text review, (d) construct mapping, and (e) measure forward searches. Outer setting constructs were defined using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The search strategy included four relevant constructs separately: (a) cosmopolitanism, (b) external policy and incentives, (c) patient needs and resources, and (d) peer pressure. Information was coded using nine psychometric criteria: (a) internal consistency, (b) convergent validity, (c) discriminant validity, (d) known-groups validity, (e) predictive validity, (f) concurrent validity, (g) structural validity, (h) responsiveness, and (i) norms. Frequencies were calculated to summarize the availability of psychometric information. Information quality was rated using a 5-point scale and a final median score was calculated for each measure. Results: Systematic searches yielded 20 measures: four measures of the general outer setting domain, seven of cosmopolitanism, four of external policy and incentives, four of patient needs and resources, and one measure of peer pressure. Most were subscales within full scales assessing implementation context. Typically, scales or subscales did not have any psychometric information available. Where information was available, the quality was most often rated as â 1-minimalâ or â 2-adequate.â Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to focus exclusively on measures of outer setting factors used in behavioral and mental health research and comprehensively assess a range of psychometric criteria. The results highlight the limited quantity and quality of measures at this level. Researchers should not assume â one size fits allâ when measuring outer setting constructs. Some outer setting constructs may be more appropriately and efficiently assessed using objective indices or administrative data reflective of the system rather than the individual

Quantitative measures of health policy implementation determinants and outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Public policy has tremendous impacts on population health. While policy development has been extensively studied, policy implementation research is newer and relies largely on qualitative methods. Quantitative measures are needed to disentangle differential impacts of policy implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and outcomes to ensure intended benefits are realized. Implementation outcomes include acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, compliance/fidelity, feasibility, penetration, sustainability, and costs. This systematic review identified quantitative measures that are used to assess health policy implementation determinants and outcomes and evaluated the quality of these measures. METHODS: Three frameworks guided the review: Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al.), Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al.), and Policy Implementation Determinants Framework (Bullock et al.). Six databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, PAIS, ERIC, and Worldwide Political. Searches were limited to English language, peer-reviewed journal articles published January 1995 to April 2019. Search terms addressed four levels: health, public policy, implementation, and measurement. Empirical studies of public policies addressing physical or behavioral health with quantitative self-report or archival measures of policy implementation with at least two items assessing implementation outcomes or determinants were included. Consensus scoring of the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale assessed the quality of measures. RESULTS: Database searches yielded 8417 non-duplicate studies, with 870 (10.3%) undergoing full-text screening, yielding 66 studies. From the included studies, 70 unique measures were identified to quantitatively assess implementation outcomes and/or determinants. Acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and compliance were the most commonly measured implementation outcomes. Common determinants in the identified measures were organizational culture, implementation climate, and readiness for implementation, each aspects of the internal setting. Pragmatic quality ranged from adequate to good, with most measures freely available, brief, and at high school reading level. Few psychometric properties were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Well-tested quantitative measures of implementation internal settings were under-utilized in policy studies. Further development and testing of external context measures are warranted. This review is intended to stimulate measure development and high-quality assessment of health policy implementation outcomes and determinants to help practitioners and researchers spread evidence-informed policies to improve population health. REGISTRATION: Not registered

Depression and alcohol misuse among older adults: exploring mechanisms and policy impacts using agent-based modelling

Purpose: To: (1) explore how multi-level factors impact the longitudinal prevalence of depression and alcohol misuse among urban older adults (≥ 65 years), and (2) simulate the impact of alcohol taxation policies and targeted interventions that increase social connectedness among excessive drinkers, socially isolated and depressed older adults; both alone and in combination. Methods: An agent-based model was developed to explore the temporal co-evolution of depression and alcohol misuse prevalence among older adults nested in a spatial network. The model was based on Los Angeles and calibrated longitudinally using data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Results: Interventions with a social component targeting depressed and socially isolated older adults appeared more effective in curbing depression prevalence than those focused on excessive drinkers. Targeting had similar impacts on alcohol misuse, though the effects were marginal compared to those on depression. Alcohol taxation alone had little impact on either depression or alcohol misuse trajectories. Conclusions: Interventions that improve social connectedness may reduce the prevalence of depression among older adults. Targeting considerations could play an important role in determining the success of such efforts

Urban–Rural Differences in Older Adult Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies

Context: Depression among older adults (aged 60 years or older) is a problem that could be exacerbated by global trends in urbanization and population aging. The study purpose was to assess whether urban, relative to rural, residence is associated with depression among older adults and whether associations differ in countries with developed versus developing economies. Evidence acquisition: In 2017, the authors identified and extracted information from comparative studies of urban–rural depression prevalence among older adults. Studies were identified in PubMed, PsychINFO, and Web of Science and limited to English language articles published after 1985. Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to produce weighted pooled ORs estimating the association between urban–rural residence and depression for all study participants (N=31,598) and sub-analyses were conducted for developed (n=12,728) and developing (n=18,870) countries. Evidence synthesis: Depression prevalence was significantly higher among urban residents in ten studies and significantly higher among rural residents in three studies (all three conducted in China). Associations between urban–rural residence and depression generally remained significant after adjusting for covariates. In developed countries, the odds of depression were significantly higher among urban than rural residents (pooled OR=1.44, 95% CI=1.10, 1.88). However, in developing countries, this association was not observed (pooled OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.46, 1.77). Conclusions: Converging trends of urbanization and population aging could increase the global burden of depression among older adults. The pathways through which urban–rural residence influences depression risk among older adults might differ by country context. Future research should focus on measuring variation in these contexts

Examining the possible impact of daily transport on depression among older adults using an agent-based model

_Objectives:_ Daily transport may impact depression risk among older adults through several pathways including facilitating the ability to meet basic needs, enabling and promoting contact with other people and nature, and promoting physical activity (e.g. through active transportation such as walking or walking to public transit). Both daily transport and depression are influenced by the neighborhood environment. To provide insights into how transport interventions may affect depression in older adults, we developed a pilot agent-based model to explore the contribution of daily transport and neighborhood environment to older adults’ depression in urban areas. _Method:_ The model includes about 18,500 older adults (i.e. agents) between the ages of 65 and 85 years old, living in a hypothetical city. The city has a grid space with a number of neighborhoods and locations. Key dynamic processes in the model include aging, daily transport use and feedbacks, and the development of depression. Key parameters were derived from US data sources. The model was validated using empirical studies. _Results:_ An intervention that combines a decrease in bus fares, shorter bus waiting times, and more bus lines and stations is most effective at reducing depression. Lower income groups are likely to be more sensitive to the public transit-oriented intervention. _Conclusion:_ Preliminary results suggest that promoting public transit use may be a promising strategy to increase daily transport and decrease depression. Our results may have implications for transportation policies and interventions to prevent depression in older adults