Sexually transmitted infections in the Delta Regional Authority: significant disparities in the 252 counties of the eight-state Delta Region Authority.

OBJECTIVE: Chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis (primary and secondary) are at high levels in the USA. Disparities by race, gender and sexual orientation have been characterised, but while there are indications that rural poor populations may also be at distinct risk this has been subjected to little study by comparison. The federally designated Delta Regional Authority, similar in structure to the Appalachian Regional Commission, oversees 252 counties within eight Mississippi Delta states experiencing chronic economic and health disparities. Our objective was to identify differences in infection risk between Delta Region (DR)/non-DR counties and examine how they might vary by rurality, population density, primary care access and education attainment. METHODS: Reported chlamydia/gonorrhoea/syphilis data were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention AtlasPlus, county demographic data from the Area Health Resource File and rurality classifications from the Department of Agriculture. Data were subjected to analysis by t-test, χ2 and linear regression to assess geographical disparities in incidence and their association with measures of rurality, population and primary care density, and education. RESULTS: Overall rates for each infection were significantly higher in DR versus non-DR counties (577.8 vs 330.1/100 000 for chlamydia; 142.8 vs 61.8 for gonorrhoea; 3.6 vs 1.7 for syphilis; all P<0.001) and for nearly every infection for every individual state. DR rates for each infection were near-universally significantly increased for every level of rurality (nine levels) and population density (quintiles). Regression found that primary care and population density and HS graduation rates were significantly associated with each, though model predictive abilities were poor. CONCLUSIONS: The nearly 10 million people living in the DR face significant disparities in the incidence of chlamydia, gonorrhoea and syphilis-in many instances a near-doubling of risk. Our findings suggest that resource-constrained areas, as measured by rurality, should be considered a priority for future intervention efforts.

Leveraging secondary data for evaluation: Planning the expansion of the Illinois asthma partnership to reduce pediatric asthma related emergency department visits.

Government partnerships with community-based and healthcare organizations have historically increased the impact of public health programs. In order to strengthen and expand the Illinois Asthma Partnership (IAP), external evaluators determined the degree to which local rates of Pediatric Asthma Related Emergency Department (PARED) visits aligned with local hospital Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNA), asthma prioritization, and IAP engagement. The majority of counties with high PARED rates also had high levels of concentrated disadvantage. Combining these data enabled identification of 15 out of 102 counties where PARED visits were high and the program was not engaged. In these counties, there was an opportunity for the IAP to assist. Potential actions in these counties could include identification of a local asthma champion and development of a new program, actions to raise community awareness of asthma, and engagement with health care community leaders to discuss perceptions of need and competing priorities. This study provided a unique and cost-effective way of utilizing easily accessible data in order to plan the expansion of the IAP.

Rural areas are disproportionately impacted by smoking and lung cancer.

Rural populations have higher rates of late stage lung cancer incidence and mortality compared to urban populations, making them important target populations for low dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening. LDCT screening has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality and is recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force for individuals who meet certain risk criteria. However, rural populations may experience greater system, provider, and individual-level barriers to screening and related health-seeking behavior (e.g. smoking cessation). LDCT screening was first tested in urban, academic centers, so it is still unknown how readily it may be implemented in rural areas. Additionally, rural populations have limited access to both primary care physicians who may refer to LDCT screening and specialty physicians who may perform the screening. Further, rural populations may be less likely to seek screening due to lack of awareness and understanding or other unknown knowledge or psychosocial barriers. There are several strategies that may address these rural specific challenges. First, further research is needed to better understand the individual-level barriers that rural patients experience. Second, to reduce system-level barriers, additional efforts should be made to increase rural access to screening through improved referral processes. Third, creation of decision support materials to equip rural providers to engage their patients in a shared decision making process regarding screening may help reduce physician level barriers. Fourth, development of a holistic approach to smoking cessation may help reduce lung cancer risk in conjunction with LDCT screening.

E-cigarettes: Who's using them and why?

Background: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are often marketed as safe and effective aids for quitting cigarette smoking, but concerns remain that use of e-cigarettes might actually reduce the number of quit attempts. To address these issues, we characterized the utilization and demographic correlates of dual use of e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes (referred to here as simply "cigarettes") among smokers in a rural population of Illinois. Methods: The majority of survey participants were recruited from the 2014 Illinois State Fair and from another event­the Springfield Mile (a motorcycle racing event)­in Springfield, Ill. Survey questions explored participant demographics and cigarette and e-cigarette use history. Results: Of 201 total cigarette smokers, 79 smoked only tobacco cigarettes (smokers), while 122 also used e-cigarettes (dual users). Dual users did not differ significantly from smokers in gender, age, income, or education. Compared to smokers, dual users were more likely to smoke within 30 minutes of awakening (odds ratio [OR]=3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-6.3), but did not smoke more cigarettes per day or perceive a greater likelihood of quit success. Non-white dual users smoked fewer cigarettes per day than smokers . In addition, 79.5% of all dual users reported that they were using e-cigarettes to quit smoking or reduce the number of cigarettes smoked, and white respondents were 6 times more likely than non-whites to use e-cigarettes for 'trying to quit smoking' (OR=6.0; 95% CI, 1.1-32.9). Males and respondents with lower income were less likely to say they were using e-cigarettes to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked than females or participants with higher income (OR=0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8 and OR=0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-0.5, respectively). Conclusions: E-cigarettes may significantly alter the landscape of nicotine physical dependence, and local influences likely are associated with use patterns. Future research should continue to examine whether dual use of traditional and electronic cigarettes impacts smoking cessation, and clinicians should be aware that local norms may create differences from national level data.