Utahns See Air Quality as a Problem, But Don\u27t Feel They Can Do Much About It

Air pollution is associated with 6.7 million premature deaths worldwide each year. Air pollution shortens Utahns’ life expectancy by two years, costs Utah’s economy $1.8 billion annually, and can cause and worsen many illnesses and conditions. Several factors play a role in people’s decisions or ability to act to reduce the harms of air pollution. This study investigated Utahns’ perception of risk around air pollution, confidence to enact behaviors to protect themselves against the effects of air pollution, and the actual protective behaviors in which they are engaging. Understanding how Utahn’s think about these factors is key for developing strategic messaging that will effectively encourage Utahns to act in response to air pollution

Addressing the Opioid Crises: An Evaluation of the Community Opioid Education Pilot Program

Utah\u27s opioid crisis presents unique challenges as progress was hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic. This pilot study assessed the effectiveness of a brief webinar-based professional development program aimed at improving knowledge and confidence among health and behavioral healthcare professionals. Results indicated positive changes in participants\u27 confidence and knowledge regarding opioid treatment options, misuse, and connecting individuals to resources

Air Pollution Associated With Perception of Increased Health Risks for People Living With Disabilities in Utah

Air quality is one of the top environmental concerns for Utahns today1. Health risks associated with air pollution can range from mild physiological impacts to death from cardiovascular and respiratory disease2-4. Little is known about the ways that environmental risks impact people with disabilities because they are often excluded from clinical and social science research6. Gaining a more robust understanding of air pollution’s impacts on people living with disabilities (PLwD) is particularly important considering that PLwD comprise about 32.2%5 of the U.S. population and 22% of Utah’s population, the latter of which is a younger population compared to the average1. Because of their underlying health conditions and difficulties in performing routine tasks7, PLwD may have fundamentally different perceptions about and experiences with air pollution when compared to their non-disabled counterparts. Policies and programs aimed at reducing environmental-related risks also often neglect PLwD. People with mobility impairments, for instance, may not always be able to find shelter or navigate their way inside their own shelters during air pollution-related emergencies, and those who are blind may not have equitable access to warning notifications. More so, planners ought to put forth extra effort to make sure PLwD are included in community environmental risk research and planning, yet, this is frequently overlooked8, 9. In this brief, we used data from the 2023 Utah People and Environment Poll (UPEP) to examine how Utahns living with and without disabilities perceive risks related to air pollution and how both population groups are able to navigate these risks. Considering the voices of PLwD in all aspects of risk reduction and collecting and publishing data on disability in research projects will aid in identifying, addressing, and preventing disparities across various population groups8

Affected Family Members\u27 Communicative Management of Opioid Misuse Stigma: Applying and Rethinking the Stigma Management Communication Typology

Opioid misuse is a prevalent health problem in the United States with consequences extending past the person who misuses opioids to affected family members (AFM) through courtesy stigma. The goals of this study were to understand the stigma management communication (SMC) strategies employed by AFMs when they experience courtesy stigma and changes in strategies used over time. The findings from interviews with 34 AFMs suggest the SMC strategies they employ range from those that indicate acceptance of stigma and avoidance of stigma situations to strategies where AFMs actively challenge opioid misuse stigma. However, strategy use depended on the social context and AFMs’ perceptions of opioid misuse stigma at a given moment in time. Further, findings suggest changes in AFMs’ SMC strategies over time are related to changes in their perceptions of opioid misuse stigma. Theoretical and practical implications of how families manage stigma are discussed

Communication And Stigmatization In The Clinical Front And Back Stage Of Emergency Nursing

Communication between emergency nurses (EN) and their patients and ENs and other healthcare workers have implications for patient outcomes. Additionally, people with stigmatized identities tend to visit emergency departments (ED) at high rates. The ways people who belong to stigmatized groups are communicated with and about within the ED also has consequences for their care, satisfaction with their care, and other health outcomes. The current study sought to better understand ENs’ frontstage and backstage interactions in the ED in general, as well as how stigma communication occurs in ENs’ interpersonal interactions within the ED.Data were gathered through participant observation in a metropolitan ED in the Midwest. Participant observation began November 29th, 2019 and ended on January 13th, 2020. I shadowed 16 ENs for at least one shift, for a total of 47 hours and 30 minutes. Five ENs were shadowed two or more times. Jotted notes were handwritten during site visits and expanded on within 24-26 hours to produce 98.5 single-spaced pages of field notes. Field notes were analyzed using the iterative approach in QDA Miner Qualitative Analysis software. Findings revealed differences in the types of communication that took place in ENs’ interactions in frontstage and backstage spaces within the ED. Further, stigma messages, reactions, and effects were observed in the ways ENs communicated with their patients, other ENs, and other healthcare workers. Overall, key findings about ENs’ frontstage and backstage communication in the ED suggest (1) frontstage EN-patient interactions focused on information transferring, (2) backstage interactions in the ED support extant research and add nuance to our previous understanding of how informal information is shared in healthcare interactions, and (3) findings extend theorizing about frontstage and backstage communication in healthcare by organizing frontstage and backstage interactions into primary frameworks as conceptualized by Goffman (1974), and suggesting ENs may break frame on occasion interacting with patients. Key findings related to stigma communication support the presence of stigmatization within the ED as well as affective and behavioral stigma message reactions. Implications for health communication practice and theorizing are discussed. Findings revealed differences in the types of communication that took place in ENs’ interactions in frontstage and backstage spaces within the ED. Further, stigma messages, reactions, and effects were observed in the ways ENs communicated with their patients, other ENs, and other healthcare workers. Overall, key findings about ENs’ frontstage and backstage communication in the ED suggest (1) frontstage EN-patient interactions focused on information transferring, (2) backstage interactions in the ED support extant research and add nuance to our previous understanding of how informal information is shared in healthcare interactions, and (3) findings extend theorizing about frontstage and backstage communication in healthcare by suggesting a new type of interaction conceptualized as frontstage-backstage crossover. Key findings related to stigma communication support the presence of stigmatization within the ED as well as affective and behavioral stigma message reactions. Implications for health communication practice and theorizing are discussed

Assessing Boil Water Notices as Health-Risk Communication: Risk Perceptions, Efficacy, and Compliance during Winter Storm Uri

Winter Storm Uri was an extreme disaster that impacted much of the United States during February of 2021. Texas and Oklahoma were generally not prepared for such an event and experienced massive power grid failures. This led to cascading risks including water system disruptions and many boil water notices (BWNs). The breakdown of some communication channels and the inability to enact protective actions due to power outages, as well as travel limitations on public roads, complicated both dissemination and implementation. Under these conditions, a non-representative, cross-sectional, survey was collected to assess individuals experience BWNs and how perceived efficacy impacts compliance. The survey was performed in accordance methods approved by Institutional Review Boards at the University of Texas at Tyler (IRB-FY2021-129) and Wayne State University (IRB-21-02-3278 using Qualtrics XM (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Participants were restricted to adults living in Texas or Oklahoma during February 14 to February 26, 2021 that were at least 18 years of age. Responses from adults (18+ years old) living in Texas and Oklahoma during the Winter Storm Uri were collected March 2 through April 21, 2021. Overall, there were a total of 893 respondents; 775 from Texas, 101 from Oklahoma (including Native American reservations), and 17 respondents that did not identify their location. 886 record dataset, results of survey Data dictionary: WHIRLid: Number identify a unique survey respondent (excluding previews); State: State or Territory; Q5IMPACTEDBYSTORM: Were you in an area impacted by the winter storm during approximately February 14th through the 26th?; Q7BWADURINGSTORM: Was your home under a boil water advisory or notice, or a do not drink order following the winter storm during this time period?; Q11RUNNINGWATER: Since the winter storm, did you experience a loss of running water?; Q12_1ELECTRICITY: During the time of the water advisory did you have: - Electricity to boil water; Q16_1LOWPRESSURE: Identify all of the conditions with drinking water in your home since the winter storm started on February 14th, 2021? - Low pressure/low flow; Q16_3DISCOLOR: Identify all of the conditions with drinking water in your home since the winter storm started on February 14th, 2021? - Discolored (e.g., red water); Q16_4BADSMELLING: Identify all of the conditions with drinking water in your home since the winter storm started on February 14th, 2021? - Water that smelled; Q16_6FROZEN: Identify all of the conditions with drinking water in your home since the winter storm started on February 14th, 2021? - Frozen pipes; Q35BWAPERCEPTIONS1: How would you rate the quality of the water at your faucet?; Q36BWAPERCEPTIONS2: Would you say you are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the water at your faucet?; Q37rBWAPERCEPTIONS3: In your view, how safe or unsafe is the water at your faucet?; WQPerception: Water Quality Perception Scale based on AWWA Survey (Mean scores of Q35, Q36, and Q37r); RiskPerception: Risk Perception Scale based on Rimal and Real (2003) (Mean of Q38 and Q39); Q38SUSCEPTIBILITY: Susceptibility (Mean of scores from Q38_1SUSCEPTIBILITY1 and Q38_2SUSCEPTIBILITY2 ); Q38_1SUSCEPTIBILITY1: Compared to most people my age, I understand that my risk of getting a water borne disease is:; Q38_2SUSCEPTIBILITY2: The likelihood of my getting a water borne disease is:; Q39SEVERITY: Severity (Mean of scores from Q39_1SEVERITY1 and Q39_2SEVERITY2); Q39_1SEVERITY1: Water borne diseases are serious diseases that can cause harm.; Q39_2SEVERITY2: Water borne diseases are more serious than most people realize; Q40EFFICACYSCALE: Efficacy Scale (Mean of Q40RESPONSEEFFICACY and Q40SELFEFFICACY); RESPONSEEFFICACY: Response Efficacy (Sum of Q40_1-3); Q40_1RESPONSEEFFICACY1: Water advisories work in preventing water borne diseases.; Q40_2RESPONSEEFFICACY2: Following a water advisory is effective in preventing water borne diseases.; Q40_3RESPONSEEFFICACY3: If I follow a water advisory, I am less likely to get a water borne disease.; SELFEFFICACY: Self Efficacy (Sum of Q40_4-5); Q40_4SELFEFFICACY1: I am able to follow a water advisory to prevent getting a water borne disease.; Q40_5SELFEFFICACY2: Following a water advisory is easy to prevent getting a water borne disease.; Q40_6SELFEFFICACY3: Following a water advisory to prevent water borne diseases is convenient.; Q43AGE: Age Group; Q44RACE: Race; MinorInHouse: Does child under 18 live in your household?; GenderGroup: Gender; Q47FAMILYINCOME: Family Income; EducationGroup: What is the highest level of education you have received?; Q49EMPLOYMENT: Employment statu