Asunto(s)
Ética , Nacionalsocialismo , Prejuicio , Edición , Humanos , Ética/historia , Ética Médica/historia , Alemania , Historia del Siglo XX , Medicina , Nacionalsocialismo/historia , Prejuicio/ética , Prejuicio/etnología , Prejuicio/historia , Propaganda , Edición/ética , Edición/historia , Edición/normas , Ciencia/ética , Ciencia/historia , Racismo Sistemático/ética , Racismo Sistemático/etnología , Racismo Sistemático/historia , Estados Unidos , Derechos Humanos/ética , Derechos Humanos/historiaAsunto(s)
Pandemias , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Pandemias/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trazado de Contacto , COVID-19/epidemiología , Humanos , Salud Pública , SARS-CoV-2Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/provisión & distribución , Salud Global , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/organización & administración , Cooperación Internacional , Vacunación Masiva/organización & administración , Política de Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/ética , Humanos , Estados UnidosAsunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/organización & administración , Epidemias/historia , Cooperación Internacional , Liderazgo , Práctica de Salud Pública , COVID-19/epidemiología , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/historia , Epidemias/prevención & control , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Humanos , Inmunización Secundaria , Influenza Pandémica, 1918-1919/historia , Política , Práctica de Salud Pública/historia , Opinión Pública , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have become a widely embraced policy to address the US opioid crisis. Despite mixed scientific evidence on their effectiveness at improving health and reducing overdose deaths, 49 states and Washington, DC have adopted PDMPs, and they have received strong bipartisan legislative support. This article explores the history of PDMPs, tracking their evolution from paper-based administrative databases in the early 1900s to modern-day electronic systems that intervene at the point of care. We focus on two questions: how did PDMPs become so widely adopted in the United States, and how did they gain popularity as an intervention in the contemporary opioid crisis? Through this historical approach, we evaluate what PDMPs reflect about national drug policy and broader cultural understandings of substance use disorder in the United States today. (Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1191-1197. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305696).
Asunto(s)
Mal Uso de Medicamentos de Venta con Receta , Programas de Monitoreo de Medicamentos Recetados/historia , Salud Pública , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Sobredosis de Droga/prevención & control , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Humanos , Políticas , Mal Uso de Medicamentos de Venta con Receta/historia , Mal Uso de Medicamentos de Venta con Receta/prevención & control , Estados UnidosAsunto(s)
Betacoronavirus , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Epidemias/prevención & control , Planificación en Salud , Lenguaje , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , COVID-19 , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Infecciones por Coronavirus/transmisión , Epidemias/historia , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Humanos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/transmisión , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Confronted by compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harms of smoking, the tobacco industry, beginning in the 1950s, used sophisticated public relations approaches to undermine and distort the emerging science. The industry campaign worked to create a scientific controversy through a program that depended on the creation of industry-academic conflicts of interest. This strategy of producing scientific uncertainty undercut public health efforts and regulatory interventions designed to reduce the harms of smoking. A number of industries have subsequently followed this approach to disrupting normative science. Claims of scientific uncertainty and lack of proof also lead to the assertion of individual responsibility for industrially produced health risks.
Asunto(s)
Conflicto de Intereses , Industria del Tabaco/historia , Investigación Biomédica/historia , Historia del Siglo XX , Humanos , Medios de Comunicación de Masas , Apoyo a la Investigación como Asunto , Fumar/efectos adversos , Fumar/historia , Industria del Tabaco/ética , Industria del Tabaco/legislación & jurisprudenciaAsunto(s)
Regulación Gubernamental , Fumar/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria del Tabaco/legislación & jurisprudencia , United States Food and Drug Administration , Publicidad/historia , Publicidad/legislación & jurisprudencia , Historia del Siglo XX , Responsabilidad Legal , Fumar/historia , Prevención del Hábito de Fumar , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
In the 1930s and 1940s, smoking became the norm for both men and women in the United States, and a majority of physicians smoked. At the same time, there was rising public anxiety about the health risks of cigarette smoking. One strategic response of tobacco companies was to devise advertising referring directly to physicians. As ad campaigns featuring physicians developed through the early 1950s, tobacco executives used the doctor image to assure the consumer that their respective brands were safe. These advertisements also suggested that the individual physicians' clinical judgment should continue to be the arbiter of the harms of cigarette smoking even as systematic health evidence accumulated. However, by 1954, industry strategists deemed physician images in advertisements no longer credible in the face of growing public concern about the health evidence implicating cigarettes.