Shelter from the Storm: Roles, responsibilities, and challenges in United States housing policy governance

'You feel how you look': Exploring the impacts of unmet water, sanitation, and hygiene needs among rural people experiencing homelessness and their intersection with drug use

Existing literature attests to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) inequities among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) in the United States, but there is a dearth of research on such issues in rural areas. Homelessness is an emerging public health concern in rural areas where homelessness is on the rise, infectious disease outbreaks are becoming increasingly common, and PEH face unique WASH-related challenges compared to their urban counterparts. We conducted an exploratory study to understand the impacts of unmet WASH needs among rural PEH and their intersection with drug use through in-depth interviews (n = 10). Eligible participants were 18 years or older, lived in one of five Central Appalachian counties, and had experienced homelessness in the previous six months. Using thematic analysis, we identified factors that inhibit WASH access, and adverse health and well-being outcomes that result from unmet WASH needs. We also explore how WASH experiences compare among rural PEH who self-reported drug use to those who did not. Our findings revealed that factors at multiple levels inhibited WASH access, including stigma and place-based characteristics, which contributed to the adverse physical, mental, and emotional health of PEH. Comparisons between PEH who used drugs to those that did not revealed the intricate relationship between WASH, homelessness, and substance use in communities impacted by the opioid epidemic. Expanded WASH facilities that are safe and available with no prerequisites can address inadequate access among rural PEH and collaboration with harm reduction services may be advantageous to reach those who inject drugs.

Brexit and trade policy: an analysis of the governance of UK trade policy and what it means for health and social justice

BACKGROUND

There is an extensive body of research demonstrating that trade and globalisation can have wide-ranging implications for health. Robust governance is key to ensuring that health, social justice and sustainability are key considerations within trade policy, and that health risks from trade are effectively mitigated and benefits are maximised. The UK's departure from the EU provides a rare opportunity to examine a context where trade governance arrangements are being created anew, and to explore the consequences of governance choices and structures for health and social justice. Despite its importance to public health, there has been no systematic analysis of the implications of UK trade policy governance. We therefore conducted an analysis of the governance of the UK's trade policy from a public health and social justice perspective.

RESULTS

Several arrangements required for good governance appear to have been implemented - information provision, public consultation, accountability to Parliament, and strengthening of civil service capacity. However, our detailed analyses of these pillars of governance identified significant weaknesses in each of these areas.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a new trade policy agenda calls for robust systems of governance. However, our analysis demonstrates that, despite decades of mounting evidence on the health and equity impacts of trade and the importance of strong systems of governance, the UK government has largely ignored this evidence and failed to galvanise the opportunity to include public health and equity considerations and strengthen democratic involvement in trade policy. This underscores the point that the evidence alone will not guarantee that health and justice are prioritised. Rather, we need strong systems of governance everywhere that can help seize the health benefits of international trade and minimise its detrimental impacts. A failure to strengthen governance risks poor policy design and implementation, with unintended and inequitable distribution of harms, and 'on-paper' commitments to health, social justice, and democracy unfulfilled in practice. Although the detailed findings relate to the situation in the UK, the issues raised are, we believe, of wider relevance for those with an interest of governing for health in the area of international trade.

Socioeconomic risk factors for fatal opioid overdoses in the United States: Findings from the Mortality Disparities in American Communities Study (MDAC)

BACKGROUND

Understanding relationships between individual-level demographic, socioeconomic status (SES) and U.S. opioid fatalities can inform interventions in response to this crisis.

METHODS

The Mortality Disparities in American Community Study (MDAC) links nearly 4 million 2008 American Community Survey responses to the 2008-2015 National Death Index. Univariate and multivariable models were used to estimate opioid overdose fatality hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Opioid overdose was an overrepresented cause of death among people 10 to 59 years of age. In multivariable analysis, compared to Hispanics, Whites and American Indians/Alaska Natives had elevated risk (HR = 2.52, CI:2.21-2.88) and (HR = 1.88, CI:1.35-2.62), respectively. Compared to women, men were at-risk (HR = 1.61, CI:1.50-1.72). People who were disabled were at higher risk than those who were not (HR = 2.80, CI:2.59-3.03). Risk was higher among widowed than married (HR = 2.44, CI:2.03-2.95) and unemployed than employed individuals (HR = 2.46, CI:2.17-2.79). Compared to adults with graduate degrees, those with high school only were at-risk (HR = 2.48, CI:2.00-3.06). Citizens were more likely than noncitizens to die from this cause (HR = 4.62, CI:3.48-6.14). Compared to people who owned homes with mortgages, those who rented had higher HRs (HR = 1.36, CI:1.25-1.48). Non-rural residents had higher risk than rural residents (HR = 1.46, CI:1.34, 1.59). Compared to respective referent groups, people without health insurance (HR = 1.30, CI:1.20-1.41) and people who were incarcerated were more likely to die from opioid overdoses (HR = 2.70, CI:1.91-3.81). Compared to people living in households at least five-times above the poverty line, people who lived in poverty were more likely to die from this cause (HR = 1.36, CI:1.20-1.54). Compared to people living in West North Central states, HRs were highest among those in South Atlantic (HR = 1.29, CI:1.11, 1.50) and Mountain states (HR = 1.58, CI:1.33, 1.88).

DISCUSSION

Opioid fatality was associated with indicators of low SES. The findings may help to target prevention, treatment and rehabilitation efforts to vulnerable groups.

A scoping review of the implementation of health in all policies at the local level

OBJECTIVES

Health in All Policies (HiAP) is an approach to public policies across sectors that systematically takes into account the health implications of decisions, seeks synergies, and avoids harmful health impacts in order to improve population health and health equity. HiAP implementation can involve engagement from multiple levels of government; however, factors contributing or hindering HiAP implementation at the local level are largely unexplored. Local is defined as the city or municipal level, wherein government is uniquely positioned to provide leadership for health and where many social determinants of health operate. This paper presents the results of a scoping review on local HiAP implementation.

METHODS

Peer reviewed articles and grey literature were systematically searched using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Characteristics of articles were then categorized, tallied and described.

RESULTS

23 scholarly articles and four government documents were identified, ranging in publication year from 2002 to 2016 and originating from 14 countries primarily from North America and Europe. A wide range of themes emerged relating to HiAP implementation locally including: funding, shared vision, national leadership, ownership and accountability, local leadership and dedicated staff, Health Impact Assessment, and indicators.

CONCLUSION

Common themes were found in the literature regarding HiAP implementation locally. However, to better clarify these factors to contribute to theory development on HiAP implementation, further research is needed that specifically investigates the facilitators and barriers of HiAP locally within their political and policy context.