Lights! Camera! Policy! Regulating the Morality of American Entertainment

For most of the twentieth century the public, the media, and politicians have shown concern for the morality of the motion picture and television industries, and on a few occasions the federal government has attempted to regulate the content of movies and television programs. These attempts bring into conflict the desire to uphold a safe and well-ordered society with the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. This work is an attempt to answer questions about when policies that censor the motion picture or television industries change and what political factors explain the regulatory framework that emerges from these periods of change. Though the issue of television and movie morality has always attracted political attention, very little academic work has been produced to aid in an understanding of the processes surrounding morality policy change toward these major industries. To fill this gap in the literature, promising recent theories of policy change and morality politics are synthesized and rigorously tested. A longitudinal analysis of image and venue activity is undertaken in order to point out periods of policy change. Two cases of morality policy are identified and examined both contextually and using a multivariate time-series model. Results suggest that successful attempts to regulate the content of movies and television programs are dependent upon public opinion, the power of interest groups, and the power of bureaucratic agencies all calling for some form of censorship. Furthermore, findings suggest that the partisan and ideological differences in Congress are not a significant factor in policy change. Conservatives and liberals must agree that the industry in question presents a danger to American society

Practices and concerns related to naloxone use among emergency medical service providers in a rural state: A mixed-method examination

The rate of opioid misuse and overdose continues to increase in rural areas of the U.S. In response, access to naloxone hydrochloride (“naloxone”), an opioid antagonist used to reverse opioid overdose, has increased among both first responders and laypeople. While plenty of research has examined naloxone use among laypeople, little remains known about practices and concerns related to naloxone among emergency medical services (EMS) providers. This is particularly true among those serving rural areas that are disproportionately affected by opioid overdoses and the underutilization of naloxone. Accordingly, a mixed-method approach consisting of a quantitative Internet survey (N = 854) and qualitative focus groups (N = 20) was utilized to examine practices and concerns related to naloxone among EMS providers in a rural state. Participants represented a range of EMS licensure levels and years of experience. Findings from the focus groups can be summarized under two major themes: 1) variance in naloxone use and 2) concerns about naloxone use. In addition, meaningful information on practices of and concerns related to naloxone use, including rates of naloxone administration, knowledge about naloxone use/overdose, confidence in administering naloxone and providing follow-up care, and perceptions of rural impact, were obtained from rural EMS. Information obtained from this study can help inform policy and prevention efforts specific to EMS providers serving rural areas, including providing further evidence for permitting all EMS providers, regardless of licensure level, to administer naloxone and ensuring that education about naloxone use is effectively disseminated to these providers. Keywords: Rural, Naloxone, Opioids, Emergency medical services, Mixed method