School of Public Health

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes elevates the risk of severe outcomes in COVID-19 patients, with multiple studies reporting higher case fatality rates. Metformin is a widely used medication for glycemic management. We hypothesize that improved adherence to metformin may lower COVID-19 post-infection mortality risk in this group. Utilizing data from the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS), we investigate the relationship between metformin adherence and mortality following COVID-19 infection in patients with chronic metformin prescriptions. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study consisting of 61,180 IMSS beneficiaries who received a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 and had at least two consecutive months of metformin prescriptions prior to the positive test. The hypothetical intervention is improved adherence to metformin, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC), with the comparison being the observed metformin adherence values. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality following COVID-19 infection. We defined the causal parameter using shift intervention, an example of modified treatment policies. We used the targeted learning framework for estimation of the target estimand. FINDINGS: Among COVID-19 positive patients with chronic metformin prescriptions, we found that a 5% and 10% absolute increase in metformin adherence is associated with a respective 0.26% (95% CI: -0.28%, 0.79%) and 1.26% (95% CI: 0.72%, 1.80%) absolute decrease in mortality risk. INTERPRETATION: Subject to the limitations of a real-world data study, our results indicate a causal association between improved metformin adherence and reduced COVID-19 post-infection mortality risk.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. safety net, which provides critical aid to households with low income, is composed of a patchwork of separate programs, and many people with low income benefit from accessing <1 program. However, little is known about multiprogram take-up, that is, participation conditioned on eligibility. This study examined individual and multiprogram take-up patterns and sociodemographic factors associated with multiprogram take-up of U.S. safety net programs. METHODS: The Assessing California Communities Experiences with Safety Net Supports study interviewed Californians and reviewed their 2019 tax forms between August 2020 and May 2021. Take-up of safety net programs was calculated among eligible participants (n=365), including the Earned Income Tax Credit; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; and Medicaid. Multivariable regressions identified sociodemographic factors associated with take-up of multiple programs. RESULTS: Take-up was highest for Medicaid (90.6%) and lowest for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (57.5%). Among people who received benefits from at least 1 other program, take-up ranged from 81.7% to 84.8% for the Earned Income Tax Credit; 54.4%-62.0% for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; 74.3%-80.1% for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; and 89.7%-98.1% for Medicaid. Having a lower income and being younger were associated with concurrent take-up of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children recipients, having higher income, being older, and being primarily English speaking were associated with Earned Income Tax Credit take-up. CONCLUSIONS: Individual and multiprogram take-up vary between programs and by sociodemographic factors. Findings suggest opportunities to increase take-up of potentially synergistic programs by improving cross-program coordination, data sharing, and targeted recruitment of underenrolled subgroups (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children).

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or similarly identified (LGBTQ+) people experience substantial mental health disparities compared to heterosexuals. The Lets Connect intervention was designed to improve mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ people. This impact evaluation aimed to assess effectiveness of this intervention during its pilot phase, using a single arm pilot trial. Respondents completed baseline surveys at intervention start, a post survey on the last day of the intervention (at 6 weeks), then a follow-up survey 6 weeks after the intervention ended (at 12 weeks). Pre-post differences in outcomes were analyzed using paired t-tests, chi-square tests, and generalized estimating equations to evaluate impact on mental health outcomes at 6 and 12 weeks, and identify characteristics associated with loss to follow-up. The average value of all three outcome measures decreased substantially between the baseline and post surveys; all of these differences were highly statistically significant, and further decreased between the end of the intervention at 6 weeks and the 12 week follow-up survey. Lets Connect participants did experience substantial improvements in mental health outcomes, on average, between the start and end of this intervention. Further study of this intervention using a randomized design and control group is warranted.

Background

Setting

Methods

Results

Conclusion

OBJECTIVE: Conflicting evidence for the association between COVID-19 and adverse perinatal outcomes exists. This study examined the associations between maternal COVID-19 during pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes including preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), small-for-gestational age (SGA), large-for-gestational age (LGA) and fetal death; as well as whether the associations differ by trimester of infection. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study used a retrospective Mexican birth cohort from the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico, between January 2020 and November 2021. PARTICIPANTS: We used the social security administrative dataset from IMSS that had COVID-19 information and linked it with the IMSS routine hospitalisation dataset, to identify deliveries in the study period with a test for SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy. OUTCOME MEASURES: PTB, LBW, SGA, LGA and fetal death. We used targeted maximum likelihood estimators, to quantify associations (risk ratio, RR) and CIs. We fit models for the overall COVID-19 sample, and separately for those with mild or severe disease, and by trimester of infection. Additionally, we investigated potential bias induced by missing non-tested pregnancies. RESULTS: The overall sample comprised 17 340 singleton pregnancies, of which 30% tested positive. We found that those with mild COVID-19 had an RR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) for PTB and those with severe COVID-19 had an RR of 1.53 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.19) for LGA. COVID-19 in the first trimester was associated with fetal death, RR=2.36 (95% CI 1.04, 5.36). Results also demonstrate that missing non-tested pregnancies might induce bias in the associations. CONCLUSIONS: In the overall sample, there was no evidence of an association between COVID-19 and adverse perinatal outcomes. However, the findings suggest that severe COVID-19 may increase the risk of some perinatal outcomes, with the first trimester potentially being a high-risk period.

People who nonmedically use drugs (PWUD) face intricate social issues that suppress self-actualization, communal integration, and overall health and wellness. Strengths-based approaches, an under-used pedagogy and practice in addiction medicine, underscore the significance of identifying and recognizing the inherent and acquired skills, attributes, and capacities of PWUD. A strengths-based approach engenders client affirmation and improves their capacity to reduce drug use-related harms by leveraging existing capabilities. Exploring this paradigm, we conducted and analyzed interviews with 46 PWUD who were clients at syringe services programs in New York City and rural southern Illinois, two areas with elevated rates of opioid-related morbidity and mortality, to assess respondents perceived strengths. We located two primary thematic modalities in which strengths-based ethos is expressed: individuals (1) being and advocate and resource for harm reduction knowledge and practices and (2) engaging in acts of continuous self-actualization. These dynamics demonstrate PWUD strengths populating and manifesting in complex ways that both affirm and challenge humanist and biomedical notions of individual agency, as PWUD refract enacted, anticipated, and perceived stigmas. In conclusion, programs that blend evidence-based, systems-level interventions on drug use stigma and disenfranchisement with meso and micro-level strengths-based interventions that affirm and leverage personal identity, decision-making capacity, and endemic knowledge may help disrupt health promotion cleavages among PWUD.

Objectives. To describe the current financial health of syringe services programs (SSPs) in the United States and to assess the predictors of SSP budget levels and associations with delivery of public health interventions. Methods. We surveyed all known SSPs operating in the United States from February to June 2022 (n = 456), of which 68% responded (n = 311). We used general estimating equations to assess factors influencing SSP budget size and estimated the effects of budget size on multiple measures of SSP services. Results. The median SSP annual budget was $100 000 (interquartile range = $20 159‒$290 000). SSPs operating in urban counties and counties with higher levels of opioid overdose mortality had significantly higher budget levels, while SSPs located in counties with higher levels of Republican voting in 2020 had significantly lower budget levels. SSP budget levels were significantly and positively associated with syringe and naloxone distribution coverage. Conclusions. Current SSP funding levels do not meet minimum benchmarks. Increased funding would help SSPs meet community health needs. Public Health Implications. Federal, state, and local initiatives should prioritize sustained SSP funding to optimize their potential in addressing multiple public health crises. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(4):435-443. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307583).

INTRODUCTION: The majority of large public universities have exclusive pouring rights contracts with beverage companies that produce and market sugar-sweetened beverages. Pouring rights contracts contain provisions that conflict with recommendations from major public health organizations that institutions reduce sugar-sweetened beverage availability, marketing, and consumption. This study assessed the following among students at 3 public universities: student perception of pouring rights contracts (the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts), the association between student socioeconomic characteristics and perception of pouring rights contracts, student estimates of pouring rights contract revenue, and the association between student pouring rights contract revenue estimates and perception of pouring rights contracts. To contextualize results, actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues was estimated. METHODS: A cross-sectional exploratory study was conducted among a convenience sample of 1,311 undergraduate sugar-sweetened beverages-consuming students recruited from 3 large and diverse public universities in Northern California. On an online questionnaire, undergraduate students indicated the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts on a 10-point scale (oppose=1-5, favor=6-10) and provided a numeric estimate of the percentage of total university revenue they thought their universitys pouring rights contract generated. Regression models were used to analyze differences in perception of pouring rights contracts by student socioeconomic characteristics and estimates of university revenues generated by pouring rights contracts. In addition, pouring rights contracts and financial reports were obtained from the 3 universities to estimate actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues. Survey data were collected between August and November 2018 and analyzed in August 2022. RESULTS: A large majority of students (81%) opposed pouring rights contracts, and the opposition did not significantly differ by student socioeconomic characteristics, including by levels of food security, need-based financial aid, participation in federal food assistance or healthcare programs, parental education, or parental income (all ps>0.14). The median student estimate for pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total university revenue was 10%. In contrast, the estimated actual annual revenue generated from the pouring rights contracts ranged from 0.01% to 0.04% at these schools. Revenue estimates were not significantly associated with participants opposition or favoring of pouring rights contracts (p=0.65). CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of students opposed pouring rights contracts, and this opposition was similar regardless of student socioeconomic characteristics or student estimates of pouring rights contract revenues. Students markedly overestimated (by >100-1,000-fold) the percentage of university revenue that came from pouring rights contracts. University administration should consider student views on pouring rights contracts when deciding whether to exit or continue with pouring rights contracts.

PURPOSE: To examine associations of prenatal biomarkers of pesticide exposure with birth size measures and length of gestation among newborns from the Infants Environmental Health (ISA) birth cohort, Costa Rica. METHODS: We included 386 singleton liveborn newborns with data on birth size measures, length of gestation, and maternal urinary biomarkers of chlorpyrifos, synthetic pyrethroids, mancozeb, pyrimethanil, and 2, 4-D during pregnancy. We associated biomarkers of exposure with birth outcomes using multivariate linear regression and generalized additive models. RESULTS: Concentrations were highest for ethylene thiourea (ETU, metabolite of mancozeb), median = 3.40; p10-90 = 1.90-6.79 µg/L, followed by 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP, metabolite of chlorpyrifos) p50 = 1.76 p10-90 = 0.97-4.36 µg/L, and lowest for 2,4-D (p50 = 0.33 p10-90 = 0.18-1.07 µg/L). Among term newborns (≥37 weeks), higher prenatal TCP was associated with lower birth weight and smaller head circumference (e.g., β per 10-fold-increase) during the second half of pregnancy = -129.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -255.8, -3.5) grams, and -0.61 (95% CI = -1.05, -0.17) centimeters, respectively. Also, among term newborns, prenatal 2,4-D was associated with lower birth weight (β per 10-fold-increase = -125.1; 95% CI = -228.8, -21.5), smaller head circumference (β = -0.41; 95% CI = -0.78, -0.03), and, during the second half of pregnancy, with shorter body length (β = -0.58; 95% CI = -1.09, -0.07). Furthermore, ETU was nonlinearly associated with head circumference during the second half of pregnancy. Biomarkers of pyrethroids and pyrimethanil were not associated with birth size, and none of the biomarkers explained the length of gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos and 2,4-D, and, possibly, mancozeb/ETU, may impair fetal growth.

BACKGROUND: Diarrheal disease is a leading cause of childhood morbidity and mortality globally. Household water, sanitation, and handwashing (WASH) interventions can reduce exposure to diarrhea-causing pathogens, but meteorological factors may impact their effectiveness. Information about effect heterogeneity under different weather conditions is critical to refining these targeted interventions. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether temperature and precipitation modified the effect of low-cost, point-of-use WASH interventions on child diarrhea. METHODS: We analyzed data from a trial in rural Bangladesh that compared child diarrhea prevalence between clusters (N=720) that were randomized to different WASH interventions between 2012 and 2016 (NCT01590095). We matched temperature and precipitation measurements to diarrhea outcomes (N=12,440 measurements, 6,921 children) by geographic coordinates and date. We estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) using generative additive models and targeted maximum likelihood estimation to assess the effectiveness of each WASH intervention under different weather conditions. RESULTS: Generally, WASH interventions most effectively prevented diarrhea during monsoon season, particularly following weeks with heavy rain or high temperatures. The PR for diarrhea in the WASH interventions group compared with the control group was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.68) after 1 d of heavy rainfall, with a less-protective effect [PR=0.87 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.25)] when there were no days with heavy rainfall. Similarly, the PR for diarrhea in the WASH intervention group compared with the control group was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.75) following above-median temperatures vs. 0.91 (95% CI: 0.61, 1.35) following below-median temperatures. The influence of precipitation and temperature varied by intervention type; for precipitation, the largest differences in effectiveness were for the sanitation and combined WASH interventions. DISCUSSION: WASH intervention effectiveness was strongly influenced by precipitation and temperature, and nearly all protective effects were observed during the rainy season. Future implementation of these interventions should consider local environmental conditions to maximize effectiveness, including targeted efforts to maintain latrines and promote community adoption ahead of monsoon seasons. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13807.