RESUMEN
Misuse and overconsumption of certain consumer products have become major global risk factors for premature deaths, with their total costs in trillions of dollars. Progress in reducing such deaths has been slow and difficult. To address this challenge, this review introduces the definition of market-driven epidemics (MDEs), which arise when companies aggressively market products with proven harms, deny these harms, and resist mitigation efforts. MDEs are a specific within the broader landscape of commercial determinants of health. We selected three illustrative MDE products reflecting different consumer experiences: cigarettes (nicotine delivery product), sugar (food product), and prescription opioids (medical product). Each met the MDE case definition with proven adverse health impacts, well-documented histories, longitudinal product consumption and health impact data, and sustained reduction in product consumption. Based on these epidemics, we describe five MDE phases: market expansion, evidence of harm, corporate resistance, mitigation, and market adaptation. From the peak of consumption to the most recent data, U.S. cigarette sales fell by 82%, sugar consumption by 15%, and prescription opioid prescriptions by 62%. For each, the consumption tipping point occurred when compelling evidence of harm, professional alarm, and an authoritative public health voice and/or public mobilization overcame corporate marketing and resistance efforts. The gap between suspicion of harm and the consumption tipping point ranged from one to five decades-much of which was attributable to the time required to generate sufficient evidence of harm. Market adaptation to the reduced consumption of target products had both negative and positive impacts. To our knowledge, this is the first comparative analysis of three successful efforts to change the product consumption patterns and the associated adverse health impacts of these products. The MDE epidemiological approach of shortening the latent time to effective mitigation provides a new method to reduce the impacts of harmful products.
RESUMEN
With more than 4.26 billion social media users worldwide, social media has become a primary source of health information, exchange, and influence. As its use has rapidly expanded, social media has proven to be a "doubled-edged sword," with considerable benefits as well as notable harms. It can be used to encourage preventive behaviors, foster social connectivity for better mental health, enable health officials to deliver timely information, and connect individuals to reliable information. But social media also has contributed to public health crises by exacerbating a decline in public trust, deteriorating mental health (especially in young people), and spreading dangerous misinformation. These realities have profound implications for health professionals, social media companies, governments, and users. We discuss promising guidelines, digital safety practices, and regulations on which to build a comprehensive approach to healthy use of social media. Concerted efforts from social media companies, governments, users, public interest groups, and academia are essential to mitigate the harms and unlock the benefits of this powerful new technology.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are among the leading causes of morbidity, mortality, and economic burden in the United States (US). While previous reports have shown that an optimal cardiovascular risk factor (CRF) profile is associated with improved outcomes among COPD patients, the impact of ASCVD and CRF on healthcare costs and resource utilization is not well described. METHODS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) database was used from 2011 to 2016 to study healthcare expenditure for COPD patients with and without ASCVD and across CRF profiles in a nationally representative population of adults in the United States. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 14,807 adults with COPD, representing 28 million cases annually. Presence of ASCVD was associated with higher reported expenditure across the spectrum of CRF profiles among those with COPD. On average, after adjusting for confounders, presence of ASCVD represented a mean difference per capita of $5438 (95% CI $4121 - $6754; p â< â0.001). Mean per capita expenditures were significantly higher comparing poor vs optimal CRF profiles, with marginal expenditures of $8552 and $6531 among those with and without ASCVD, respectively. When comparing individuals with ASCVD and poor CRF profile versus individuals without ASCVD and optimal CRF profile, those in the latter group used 13% fewer prescription medications and required 24% fewer hospitalizations. Furthermore, an optimal CRF profile was associated with lower odds of most sources of healthcare utilization regardless of ASCVD status. CONCLUSION: An absence of ASCVD and a favorable CRF profile was associated with lower healthcare expenditure and resource utilization among patients with COPD. These results provide robust estimates for potential healthcare savings as preemptive strategies continue to become integrated into new healthcare delivery models, for increased awareness and the need for improvement of CRF profiles among high-risk patients.