Rural veteran perception of healthcare access in South Carolina and Florida: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Access to mental and physical healthcare in rural areas is challenging for Veterans and their families but essential for good health. Even though recent research has revealed some of the challenges rural Veterans face accessing healthcare, a complete understanding of the gap in access is still unclear. METHODS: This qualitative study aimed to explore participants' perceptions of healthcare access. Structured interviews were conducted with 124 Veterans and spouses of Veterans from rural qualifying counties in South Carolina and Florida. RESULTS: The study's results revealed five main dimensions of access: geographic proximity, transportation, communication, cultural competence, and resources. Distance to service needed can negatively impact access for Veterans and their families in general, especially for those whose health is declining or who cannot drive because of their age. Lack of transportation, problems with transportation services, and lack of public transportation can lead to delays in care. Additionally, the lack of communication with the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System and with the healthcare team, as well as inefficient communication among the healthcare team, lack of coordination of care between the VA health system and community providers, and the lack of cultural competence of healthcare providers and contracted personnel made access to services even more challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Improving communication can help to develop a sense of trust between Veterans and the VA, and between Veterans and spouses with the healthcare team. It can also lead to increased patient satisfaction. Ensuring healthcare providers and contracted personnel are culturally competent to talk and treat Veterans can improve patient trust and adherence to treatment. Lastly, resource-related challenges included financial problems, lack of prompt access to appointments, lack of providers, limited access to local clinics and hospitals, limited local programs available, and reimbursement issues.

Who Engaged in Home-Based Arts Activities During the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Data From 4,731 Adults in the United States.

Arts engagement is a health-related behavior that may be influenced by social inequalities. While the COVID-19 pandemic provided new opportunities for some people to engage in the arts, it might have created barriers for others. We aimed to examine whether there was social patterning in home-based arts engagement during the pandemic in the United States, and whether predictors of engagement differed according to the type of arts activity. We included 4,731 adults who participated in the United States COVID-19 Social Study between April and July 2020. Three types of home-based arts engagement were considered: reading for pleasure, arts or crafts activities, and digital arts activities. Using logistic regression models, we tested cross-sectional associations between a broad range of demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and health-related factors as well as adverse events and worries during lockdown and each type of arts engagement. The factors most strongly associated with all three types of arts engagement were social support, social network size, age, race/ethnicity, keyworker status, and experiencing physical or psychological abuse during the pandemic. However, most socioeconomic and health-related factors were not associated with arts engagement, including household income and mental and physical health problems. Overall, our findings indicate that the social gradient in arts engagement was reduced in the first 4 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Given the health benefits of arts engagement, the potential diversification of arts audiences during the pandemic is promising for both population-level health and wellbeing and the future of the arts and cultural sector.

Creative leisure activities, mental health and well-being during 5 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a fixed effects analysis of data from 3725 US adults.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated whether changes in engagement in home-based creative activities were associated with changes in depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and life satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to replicate findings from the UK in a USA sample. METHODS: 3725 adults were included from the COVID-19 Social Study in the USA, a panel study collecting data weekly during the COVID-19 pandemic. We measured engagement in eight types of creative leisure activities on the previous weekday between April and September 2020. Data were analysed using fixed effects regression models. RESULTS: Increased time spent gardening was associated with reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms and enhanced life satisfaction. Spending more time doing woodwork/DIY and arts/crafts were also associated with enhanced life satisfaction. However, more time watching television, films or other similar media (not for information on COVID-19) was associated with increased depressive symptoms. Other creative activities were not associated with mental health or well-being. CONCLUSION: Some findings differ from evidence obtained in the UK, demonstrating the importance of replicating research across countries. Our findings should also be considered when formulating guidelines for future stay-at-home directives, enabling individuals to stay well despite the closure of public resources.

The Effects of the Opioid Crisis on Agricultural Industries.

Opioid use remains a significant public health crisis. However, few quantitative or qualitative data exist on the prevalence of opioid use and associated mental health conditions in agricultural industries and how it affects the industries themselves. Data on opioid use and associated consequences were collected among agricultural business owners and workers using both quantitative (n = 129) and qualitative assessment (n = 7). The prevalence of opioid use, pain, stress, and depressive symptoms as well as associated hazards were characterized among individuals who work in horticulture (nursery and landscape) and those who work in food production (livestock and crops). Qualitative interviews were also conducted to better understand individual experiences with opioid use. Opioid use was significantly higher among horticultural industries compared to food production. Pain and depressive scores were higher among those who had used opioids although stress did not differ. Importantly, substantial percentages of participants who reported opioid use also reported consequences associated with their use, including missing work, being injured at work while using, and having difficulty in completing daily tasks. These results provide initial evidence that opioid use is substantially affecting agricultural industries in terms of mental health, personal health, labor availability, and productivity.

Farmer Mental Health Interventions: A Systematic Review.

The prevalence of mental health disorders and suicide amongst agricultural producers is a global problem. Community leaders, researchers, policymakers, and clinicians have mobilized to develop programs to address this issue. This study reviewed a wide range of mental health interventions targeting farmer mental health spanning over 50 years and examined their reported effectiveness and constraints. A total of ninety-two articles on farmer mental health were included in a final systematic review. Most articles were written concerning mental health literacy and peer and paraprofessional support interventions in the United States and Australia. Among the 56 studies reporting empirical evaluative data, 21 were mixed-method, 20 quantitative, 11 qualitative, and 5 literature synthesis. Non-experimental, self-reported, and qualitative data suggest efficacy of mental health literacy programs, peer and paraprofessional support, and community-based and agroecological interventions. However, most interventions were not subject to rigorous evaluation and only one intervention was evaluated using a control condition. The heterogeneity of existing studies and paucity of rigorous evaluation proscribes firm conclusions related to program-type efficacy. This review demonstrates that there is still a need for a stronger and broader evidence base in the field of farmer mental health interventions, which should focus on both holistic, multi-component programs and targeted approaches.