State COVID-19 Policies and Drug Overdose Mortality Among Working-Age Adults in the United States, 2020.

Objectives. To identify relationships between US states' COVID-19 in-person activity limitation and economic support policies and drug overdose deaths among working-age adults in 2020. Methods. We used county-level data on 140 435 drug overdoses among adults aged 25 to 64 years during January 2019 to December 2020 from the National Vital Statistics System and data on states' COVID-19 policies from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker to assess US trends in overdose deaths by sex in 3138 counties. Results. Policies limiting in-person activities significantly increased, whereas economic support policies significantly decreased, overdose rates. A 1-unit increase in policies restricting activities predicted a 15% average monthly increase in overdose rates for men (incident rate ratio [IRR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09, 1.20) and a 14% increase for women (IRR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.09, 1.20). A 1-unit increase in economic support policies predicted a 3% average monthly decrease for men (IRR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.95, 1.00) and a 4% decrease for women (IRR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.93, 0.99). All states' policy combinations are predicted to have increased drug-poisoning mortality. Conclusions. The economic supports that states enacted were insufficient to fully mitigate the adverse relationship between activity limitations and drug overdoses. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(7):714-722. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307621).

A review of state regulations for child care: Preventing, recognizing and reporting child maltreatment.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 60% of children under 5 years of age were cared for in out-of-home child care arrangements in the United States. Thus, child care provides an opportunity to identify and address potential child maltreatment. However, during the pandemic, rates of reporting child maltreatment decreased-likely because children spent less time in the presence of mandated reporters. As children return to child care, states must have regulations in place to help child care providers prevent, recognize and report child maltreatment. However, little is known about the extent to which state regulations address child maltreatment. Therefore, the purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess state regulations related to child maltreatment and compare them to national standards. METHOD: We reviewed state regulations for all 50 states and the District of Columbia for child care centres ('centres') and family child care homes ('homes') through 31 July 2021 and compared these regulations to eight national health and safety standards on child maltreatment. We coded regulations as either not meeting, partially meeting or fully meeting each standard. RESULTS: Three states (Colorado, Utah and Washington) had regulations for centres, and one state (Washington) had regulations for homes that at least partially met all eight national standards. Nearly all states had regulations consistent with the standards requiring that caregivers and teachers are mandated reporters of child maltreatment and requiring that they be trained in preventing, recognizing and reporting child maltreatment. One state (Hawaii) did not have regulations consistent with any of the national standards for either centres or homes. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, states lacked regulations related to the prevention, recognition and reporting of child maltreatment for both centres and homes. Encouraging states to adopt regulations that meet national standards and further exploring their impact on child welfare are important next steps.

The Impact of Helping Children with Distance Learning During COVID-19 on U.S. Parents' Alcohol Consumption.

We examined the impact of distance learning-related parental stress due to COVID-19 on parental alcohol consumption using an online survey in May 2020 with a convenience sample of U.S. adults. This article focuses on the 361 parents who had children under the age of 18 living with them. Seventy-eight percent had children who were engaged in distance learning; 59% reported being stressed because they were not sure how to help their children with distance learning. Stressed parents reported consuming significantly more alcohol and binge drinking more often than parents who were not stressed by distance learning. We hope that public health professionals can use our findings to better target alcohol prevention programs aimed at parents to reduce parental stress, and hopefully, parental alcohol consumption.

Alcohol consumption and alcohol home delivery laws during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Alcohol consumption in the U.S. is a public health problem that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Relatedly, many states have responded to COVID-19 by relaxing their alcohol laws, making it possible for adults to have alcohol delivered to their homes. This study sought to understand the impact of allowing alcohol home delivery on self-reported adult alcohol consumption in the US. Methods: In May 2020, we surveyed a convenience sample of U.S. adults over 21 years of age recruited through social media and listservs. Eight hundred and thirty-two participants completed the online survey: 84% were female, 85% were White, and 72% were between the ages of 26 and 49. Results: Twenty-one percent of participants who consumed alcohol in the past month had at least some alcohol delivered, with 60% having it delivered from liquor stores, restaurants, or bars. The remainder of the participants purchased the alcohol in-person or owned it pre-COVID-19. Participants who reported having alcohol delivered also reported consuming more drinks (ß = 13.3; 95% CI [8.2, 18.4]; p < .000) and drinking on more days (ß = 5.0; 95% CI [2.9, 7.0]; p < .000) over the past month than participants who obtained alcohol through other methods. Participants who had alcohol delivered were nearly two times more likely to report engaging in binge drinking than those who obtained alcohol through other methods (OR = 1.96; 95% CI [1.3, 3.1]; p = .003). Conclusions: Obtaining alcohol through home delivery was associated with greater alcohol consumption including binge drinking. As states consider permanently allowing alcohol home delivery, it is important to consider the potential public health implications.

Stay-at-home orders and firearms in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Firearms are a leading cause of death and injury in the United States, and this trend has continued during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify whether states designated gun retailers as essential businesses in their stay-at-home orders and characterize other references that could affect firearm acquisition during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cross-sectional policy review, we assessed stay-at-home orders issued in March or April 2020. Orders were reviewed in their entirety, and any reference to firearms, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, or other relevant elements was documented. Forty-three states and the District of Columbia issued stay-at-home orders. Most considered federal firearm licensees to be among essential businesses or made provisions for them to remain open during widespread business closures. Others referenced the US Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) advisory memorandum on essential critical infrastructure workers which named workers supporting firearm manufacturing and retail among essential workers. Therefore, stay-at-home orders issued in most states included provisions for firearms retailers to remain open, at least in some capacity. Only four states and the District of Columbia did not include federal firearms licensees among essential businesses or include provisions for them to be open. Meanwhile, an all-time high in firearm background checks indicates firearm sales have markedly increased. Given the associations between firearm access and injury risk, the effects of continued firearm access facilitated by these orders should be the focus of future research.

State Regulations to Support Children's Cultural and Religious Food Preferences in Early Care and Education.

OBJECTIVE: In July 2018 the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics released a benchmark encouraging early care and education (ECE) programs, including child care centers and family child care homes, to incorporate cultural and religious food preferences of children into meals. We examined the extent to which states were already doing so through their ECE licensing and administrative regulations prior to the release of the benchmark. This review may serve as a baseline to assess future updates, if more states incorporate the benchmark into their regulations. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, we reviewed ECE regulations for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (hereafter states) through June 2018. We assessed consistency with the benchmark for centers and homes. We conducted Spearman correlations to estimate associations between the year the regulations were updated and consistency with the benchmark. RESULTS: Among centers, eight states fully met the benchmark, 11 partially met the benchmark, and 32 did not meet the benchmark. Similarly for homes, four states fully met the benchmark, 13 partially met the benchmark, and 34 did not meet the benchmark. Meeting the benchmark was not correlated with the year of last update for centers (P = 0.54) or homes (P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Most states lacked regulations consistent with the benchmark. Health professionals can help encourage ECE programs to consider cultural and religious food preferences of children in meal planning. And, if feasible, states may consider additional regulations supporting cultural and religious preferences of children in future updates to regulations.

Preventing unintentional injuries in US early care and education: Are state regulations sufficient?

Unintentional injuries are currently the leading cause of death among US children older than one. As many children spend significant time in non-parental child care, these injuries often occur outside of the home. This study examined US state early care and education (ECE) regulations related to injury prevention. We reviewed ECE regulations for child care centers and family child care homes through August 2018 for all 50 states and DC ("states"). We compared these regulations to six components from two national health and safety standards on injury prevention ("standards"). One state had regulations that met all six standards for both centers and homes; sixteen states had regulations that met at least five for both. Most states required child care providers to be trained in emergency preparedness (42 for centers; 38 for homes) or first aid including CPR (50 for centers; 46 for homes). Additionally, most states required providers in centers and homes to notify parents (47 and 41, respectively) and the state (40 and 41, respectively) when a child was injured; these requirements varied greatly in both the timing and manner of notification. Two-thirds of states required that providers keep copies of a completed injury form on the premises. However, few states (5 for centers, 3 for homes) required providers to take corrective action after an injury. Although most states had some injury prevention regulations, they varied greatly across states. More states should require corrective action after an injury to help prevent future injuries from occurring.

Childcare Providers' Possession or Use of Marijuana, Tobacco, or Alcohol While Caring for Children: A Comparison of US State Regulations.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate US state regulations regarding marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol to determine the extent to which states attempt to govern these substances in early care and education (ECE) settings. METHODS: Two independent reviewers assessed regulations enacted by December 2016 for all states and the District of Columbia. Reviewers compared regulations to national standards on the possession or use of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol in ECE settings. RESULTS: Fewer states regulated marijuana than tobacco or alcohol in ECE settings. More states restricted the use of these 3 substances than they restricted the possession of them. CONCLUSIONS: Most states address alcohol or tobacco possession or use in their regulations but should consider updating these provisions to align with national standards. Public Health Implications. Updating and strengthening state childcare regulations regarding marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol possession and use may help protect children in ECE settings, where many children spend a substantial portion of time. As more states legalize marijuana, they may consider updating their regulations and including precise language to better protect children from unintended pediatric marijuana exposure or impaired childcare providers.

Media and Young Minds: Comparing State Screen Media Use Regulations for Children Under 24 Months of Age in Early Care and Education to a National Standard.

Introduction Excessive screen media use has been associated with a number of negative health outcomes in young children, including increased risk for obesity and comparatively lagging cognitive development. The purpose of this study was to assess state licensing regulations restricting screen media use for children under 24 months old in early care and education (ECE) and to compare regulations to a national standard. Methods We reviewed screen media use regulations for all US states for child care centers ("centers") and family child care homes ("homes") and compared these regulations to a national standard discouraging screen media use in children under 24 months of age. We assessed associations between state geographic region and year of last update with the presence of regulations consistent with the standard. In centers, 24 states had regulations limiting screen media use for children under 24 months of age and 19 states had regulations limiting screen media use in homes. Results More states in the South and fewer states in the Midwest had regulations limiting screen media use. The association between geographic region and regulations was not significant for centers (p = 0.06), but was for homes (p = 0.04). The year of last update (within the past 5 years versus older than 5 years) was not associated with regulations for centers (p = 0.18) or homes (p = 0.90). Discussion Many states lacked screen media use regulations for ECE. States should consider adding screen media use restrictions for children under 24 months based on current research data and current recommendations in future regulations updates.

The Use of Regulatory Power by U.S. State and Local Alcohol Control Agencies to Ban Problematic Products.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is responsible for 4,300 deaths a year in the U.S. among persons under 21. Alcohol companies innovate rapidly and produce new products, some of which prove popular among young people. The 18 "control jurisdictions" in the U.S. - those that exercise monopoly control over some aspect of alcohol distribution - have the ability to govern which products become available within their borders and have, at times, exercised that authority to block particular products from sale. OBJECTIVES: This paper is an exploratory study examining how states use regulatory authority in control jurisdictions to restrict the sale of new alcohol products within their borders, and the reasoning used to justify those decisions. METHODS: The authors, collaborating with the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, surveyed control state officials regarding procedures and policies governing the sale of new products in their jurisdictions. RESULTS: Control jurisdictions have banned/restricted different products (e.g., grain alcohol and alcoholic energy drinks) for a variety of reasons (e.g., flavorings/packaging appealing to underage drinkers, blurring of distinctions between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, and judgment that the product was not socially responsible). Conclusions/ Importance: Although U.S. control jurisdictions universally have the authority to limit access to problematic alcohol products; they vary in the degree to which they use it. These states need to take action, and as of now, there is no systematic reasoning behind when and how states make decisions to ban/restrict these products. Greater exploration of regulatory authority in this arena could be protective of public health.

Early feeding in child care in the United States: Are state regulations supporting breastfeeding?

Most women in the US are not meeting the recommendation of exclusively breastfeeding their infants for the first 6months of life. The child care environment can be especially influential in a mother's ability to continue breastfeeding after returning to employment. For this study, we reviewed child care regulations related to breastfeeding for centers and homes in all 50 states and the District of Colombia in late 2016, and compared them to 5 national standards. We coded regulations as either not meeting, partially meeting, or fully meeting each standard. We assessed correlations between number of regulations consistent with standards and 1) geographic census region and 2) last year of update. This study provides an update to a previous review conducted in 2012. No state met all 5 of the included standards, and only 2 states for centers and 1 state for homes at least partially met 4 of the 5 standards. More states had regulations consistent with standards encouraging general support for breastfeeding and requiring a designated place for mothers to breastfeed onsite. Number of regulations consistent with standards was associated with geographic census region, but not last year of update. States in the South had a greater number of regulations consistent with standards and states in the West had the fewest number of regulations consistent with standards. Overall support for breastfeeding at the state child care regulation level continues to be insufficient. States should improve child care regulations to include greater support for breastfeeding in child care facilities.

Xylazine awareness, desire, use and exposure: Preliminary findings from the Rhode Island community-based drug checking cohort study.

Background: Xylazine is an ⍺2 adrenergic receptor agonist and a veterinary sedative that can cause severe health complications yet interventions to detect and treat human exposure remain underdeveloped. Community-based drug checking services (DCS) involve the testing of small amounts of drugs to increase community knowledge of unregulated supplies and decrease harms. This study characterized xylazine awareness, desire, use and exposure among people who use drugs (PWUD) in Rhode Island, US. Methods: We analyzed data from an ongoing PWUD cohort study. In 2023, 125 PWUD were enrolled and surveyed. Using point-of-care Fourier Transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR-S), we tested a drug sample from each participant onsite and confirmed the results offsite at a laboratory. Results were conveyed in real-time, along with harm reduction education, referrals to resources and care. Results: Virtually all participants (99.2 %) wanted to avoid xylazine exposure. Half (51.2 %) knew what xylazine was, and a quarter (26.1 %) suspected previous exposure. Xylazine exposure was primarily surmised through sedating (45.2 %) and ulcerative (29.0 %) effects. Only 8.8 % of participants submitted a sample that they expected to contain xylazine. Xylazine was detected in 14.5 % of samples using FTIR-S and in 21.4 % of samples using a dual laboratory approach of gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS). Participants thought that these xylazine-positive samples were fentanyl (78.3 %), heroin (13.0 %), or Percocet® (8.7 %). Conclusion: Implementing point-of-care DCS at harm reduction organizations could be useful in rapidly increasing xylazine awareness and engaging at-risk individuals in prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and rapid care for xylazine-related wounds.

Incentives and penalties tied to sales volume in contracts between beverage companies and public universities in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether and how beverage companies incentivize universities to maximize sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) sales through pouring rights contracts. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of contracts between beverage companies and public U.S. universities with 20,000 or more students active in 2018 or 2019. We requested contracts from 143 universities. The primary measures were presence of financial incentives and penalties tied to sales volume. RESULTS: 124 universities (87%) provided 131 unique contracts (64 Coca-Cola, 67 Pepsi). 125 contracts (95%) included at least one provision tying payments to sales volume. The most common incentive type was commissions, found in 104 contracts (79%). Nineteen contracts (15%) provided higher commissions or rebates for carbonated soft drinks compared to bottled water. CONCLUSIONS: Most contracts between universities and beverage companies incentivized universities to market and sell bottled beverages, particularly SSBs. Given the health risks associated with consumption of SSBs, universities should consider their role in promoting them.

Pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies: Provisions related to scientific research.

Pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies are common and grant companies the exclusive right to serve, sell, and market specific beverages on campuses. In exchange, universities receive financial payments and other incentives. At the same time, beverage industry-sponsored research at universities has increased. Pouring rights contracts may include provisions that allocate funds for or place limitations on scientific research. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed whether pouring rights contracts contained provisions that allocated funds for or placed limitations on scientific research. From 2019 to 2020, we obtained contracts through requests under public records laws from US universities (public, 4-year, ≥ 20,000 students) with contracts active 2018-2019. Of the 143 requests, 6 did not have contracts and 9 declined to provide contracts. Our final sample included 131 contracts from 124 universities in 38 states. Thirty contracts (22.9%) referenced research (18 Coke; 12 Pepsi). Three contracts (2.3%) included provisions that made direct grants or gifts of research funding, 3 (2.3%) permitted the university to acknowledge funding from competitors, and 26 (19.8%) allowed for research using beverages from competing companies. Given increases in industry-sponsored research, the absence of provisions that made direct grants or gifts of research funding suggests that sponsorship of research is occurring through other mechanisms. Additionally, universities must be able to acknowledge funding and conduct research on any beverage and should not need permission via contract provisions to do so. Future studies should consider practical implications of these provisions in pouring rights contracts and assess whether they facilitate or hinder research.

Are Students Paid to Market Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Peers? A Review of University Pouring Rights Contracts.

Background: Many university students regularly consume sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), which are associated with obesity and related chronic diseases. Moreover, students are strongly influenced by both their peers and product marketing. Our exploratory study examined pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies, focusing on provisions establishing campus/brand ambassador positions and marketing/merchandising manager positions whose jobs are to market SSBs on campus. Methods: For this cross-sectional study conducted in late 2020, two independent coders reviewed 131 pouring rights contracts between Coca-Cola or Pepsi and 124 unique public universities with 20,000 or more students enrolled. Contracts were active in 2018 or 2019. Results: Twenty-six contracts (20%) contained provisions specifically establishing either campus/brand ambassador positions (n = 16), marketing/merchandising manager positions (n = 7), both (n = 1), or unclear language related to these positions (n = 2). Thirteen contracts (10%) required that the position be filled by a current student. The objectives for both types of positions included increasing revenue and driving beverage sales. When stated in the contracts (n = 5), the payments allocated for these positions ranged between $5,000 and $10,000 per year. Conclusions: Given the association between SSBs and obesity and other related health outcomes, combined with the influence that peers and product marketing may have on adolescents' and young adults' attitudes toward consumption of these beverages, universities should be more transparent when these provisions are included in their pouring rights contracts and should carefully consider whether it is appropriate for these contracts to include funding for students to market SSBs.

Marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages to youth through U.S. university pouring rights contracts.

Child-targeted marketing can influence children's food preferences and childhood consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with negative health outcomes in both childhood and adulthood. This study explores how beverage companies are using pouring rights contracts (PRCs) with U.S. public universities to market SSBs to youth under 18 years of age. We obtained 139 PRCs (64 Coca-Cola, 67 Pepsi, 8 Gatorade) from 132 universities between June 2019 and August 2020. Each contract was coded by two reviewers who extracted quotes relevant to youth-targeted marketing activities. Twenty-two contracts in our sample (16%) contained a total of 25 provisions related to youth-targeted marketing. Nearly all youth-targeted marketing provisions (n = 24 of 25) were tied to university athletics. Most provisions (n = 19) described the marketing of specific beverages or involved the use of brand names that are also beverages (e.g., "Gatorade," "Coca-Cola"). Fifteen contracts included advertising or support for youth summer camps; five contracts allowed the beverage company to sponsor free experiences for children at university athletic events; three contracts allowed advertising at high school athletic events hosted at university facilities; and two contracts established programs for "underprivileged" or "disadvantaged" youth. Five contracts acknowledged that their provisions may be affected by laws or self-regulatory policies that limit advertising to children. Beverage companies should reconsider marketing to youth through PRCs, universities should carefully consider PRCs with youth-targeted provisions, and the government should further regulate and prevent youth-targeted marketing.

Alcohol Consumption during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey of US Adults.

Emerging but limited evidence suggests that alcohol consumption has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study assessed: (1) whether drinking behaviors changed during the pandemic; and, (2) how those changes were impacted by COVID-19-related stress. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a convenience sample of U.S. adults over 21 years in May 2020. We conducted adjusted linear regressions to assess COVID-19 stress and alcohol consumption, adjusting for gender, race, ethnicity, age, and household income. A total of 832 responded: 84% female, 85% White, and 72% ages 26-49. Participants reported consuming 26.8 alcohol drinks on 12.2 of the past 30 days. One-third of participants (34.1%) reported binge drinking and 7.0% reported extreme binge drinking. Participants who experienced COVID-19-related stress (versus not) reported consuming more drinks (ß = 4.7; CI (0.2, 9.1); p = 0.040) and a greater number of days drinking (ß = 2.4; CI (0.6, 4.1); p = 0.007). Additionally, 60% reported increased drinking but 13% reported decreased drinking, compared to pre-COVID-19. Reasons for increased drinking included increased stress (45.7%), increased alcohol availability (34.4%), and boredom (30.1%). Participants who reported being stressed by the pandemic consumed more drinks over a greater number of days, which raises concerns from both an individual and public health perspective.

Tax Policy-An Understudied Approach to Reducing Cannabis Use.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of state taxation of cannabis products to curb use and raise revenue for public services.

Public Health and the Four P's of Marketing: Alcohol as a Fundamental Example.

This article examines how public health addresses alcohol use through marketing - place, product, promotion, and price. The article reviews current product trends and how restrictions on certain products designs may reduce youth consumption; how product availability may be restricted through zoning; and the current advertising landscape.

State Regulations Promoting Infant Physical Activity in Early Care and Education.

BACKGROUND: State policies have the potential to improve early care and education (ECE) settings, but little is known about the extent to which states are updating their licensing and administrative regulations, especially in response to national calls to action. In 2013, we assessed state regulations promoting infant physical activity in ECE and compared them with national recommendations. To assess change over time, we conducted this review again in 2018. METHODS: We reviewed regulations for all US states for child care centers (centers) and family child care homes (homes) and compared them with three national recommendations: (1) provide daily tummy time; (2) use cribs, car seats, and high chairs for their primary purpose; and (3) limit the use of restrictive equipment (e.g., strollers). We performed exact McNemar's tests to compare the number of states meeting recommendations from 2013 to 2018 to evaluate whether states had made changes over this period. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2018, we observed significant improvement in one recommendation for homes-to use cribs, car seats, and high chairs for their primary purpose (odds ratio 11.0; 95% CI 1.6-47.3; p = 0.006). We did not observe any other significant difference between 2013 and 2018 regulations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased awareness of the importance of early-life physical activity, we observed only modest improvement in the number of states meeting infant physical activity recommendations over the past 5 years. In practice, ECE programs may be promoting infant physical activity, but may not be required to do so through state regulations.