Rethinking sexual violence labels: exploring the impact of 'victim' and 'survivor' discourse.

Background: Universities' responses to sexual violence have faced scrutiny for their lack of proactiveness and their failure to address campus socio-cultural norms that contribute to rape myth acceptance. The labels victim and survivor play a crucial role in shaping attitudes toward sexual violence, but there is limited research on how university students perceive these labels.Objective: This paper explores sexual violence labels and their role in perpetuating rape culture. Undergraduate university students' beliefs on using the label survivor instead of victim to describe someone who has experienced sexual violence were examined to consider how these labels create societal discourse on sexual violence.Method: The study draws on qualitative data collected from undergraduate students in Canada and the United States through open-response questions in an interactive textbook. Data were analysed and interpreted using a multi-method approach that combined principles of Critical Discourse Analysis and Feminist Poststructuralism. Direct quotes and word clouds from participants' responses are used as evidence and to visually display discourse.Results: Findings revealed that participants recognised the negative societal discourses associated with the label victim and supported using survivor to challenge perceptions of sexual violence. Despite this, participants expressed hesitancy to adopt the label survivor because of the potential negative implications, such as the label promoting the allocation of individual blame, increasing barriers to justice, and reducing the perceived severity of sexual violence.Conclusions: This study underscores the complexities of sexual violence labels, the influence of language in shaping societal perceptions, and the need for a more comprehensive and equitable approach to responding to sexual violence.

Dichotomy of Labels and Nuanced Perceptions: Sexual violence labels shape identity perceptions. Participants dichotomised the labels victim and survivor, associating one with negative attributes and the other with positive attributes. However, nuanced views of how people perceive and identify with these labels challenge distinct categories. Victims being negatively perceived, while survivors are admired for their resiliency highlights complexities in societal expectations that may not fully address the underlying determinants of sexual violence.Role of Language in Reproduction of Rape Culture: Poststructuralist theories emphasise the role of language in the production and maintenance of discourse. The study shows that victim discourse is steeped in rape myths. The historical discourse surrounding the label may contribute to the perpetuation of negative attitudes and behaviours toward victims of sexual violence. The emergence of the label survivor reflects a societal shift, but findings suggest this may lead to societal complacency towards sexual violence.Spectrum of Severity and Societal Empathy: Participants' understanding of sexual violence as a spectrum of severity may lead to unequal levels of empathy and support. This discourse creates positions of dominance and oppression, potentially marginalising certain groups who are disproportionately affected by sexual violence. The study highlights how severity discourse can influence institutional agendas and may result in political and institutional neglect of sexual violence.

Wildfire smoke exposure and emergency department visits for headache: A case-crossover analysis in California, 2006-2020.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of short-term exposure to overall fine particulate matter of <2.5 µm (PM2.5 ) and wildfire-specific PM2.5 with emergency department (ED) visits for headache. BACKGROUND: Studies have reported associations between PM2.5 exposure and headache risk. As climate change drives longer and more intense wildfire seasons, wildfire PM2.5 may contribute to more frequent headaches. METHODS: Our study included adult Californian members (aged ≥18 years) of a large de-identified commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database from 2006 to 2020. We identified ED visits for primary headache disorders (subtypes: tension-type headache, migraine headache, cluster headache, and "other" primary headache). Claims included member age, sex, and residential zip code. We linked daily overall and wildfire-specific PM2.5 to residential zip code and conducted a time-stratified case-crossover analysis considering 7-day average PM2.5 concentrations, first for primary headache disorders combined, and then by headache subtype. RESULTS: Among 9898 unique individuals we identified 13,623 ED encounters for primary headache disorders. Migraine was the most frequently diagnosed headache (N = 5534/13,623 [47.6%]) followed by "other" primary headache (N = 6489/13,623 [40.6%]). For all primary headache ED diagnoses, we observed an association of 7-day average wildfire PM2.5 (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.44 per 10 µg/m3 increase) and by subtype we observed increased odds of ED visits associated with 7-day average wildfire PM2.5 for tension-type headache (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.91-2.22), "other" primary headache (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.96-2.05), and cluster headache (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71-2.35), although these findings were not statistically significant under traditional null hypothesis testing. Overall PM2.5 was associated with tension-type headache (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.62), but not migraine, cluster, or "other" primary headaches. CONCLUSIONS: Although imprecise, these results suggest short-term wildfire PM2.5 exposure may be associated with ED visits for headache. Patients, healthcare providers, and systems may need to respond to increased headache-related healthcare needs in the wake of wildfires and on poor air quality days.

Assessment of Climate-Health Curricula at International Health Professions Schools.

Importance: Researchers have published surveys on health professionals' perceptions of the possible association between climate change and health (climate-health) and assessed climate-health or planetary health curricula in medical schools. However, curricula on climate-health are still lacking and gaps in knowledge persist. Objective: To understand the state of climate-health curricula among health professions institutions internationally. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey of 160 institutional members of the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education, which includes international health professions schools and programs, was conducted from August 3, 2017, to March 1, 2018. The survey, hosted by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, used an online survey tool for data collection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey assessed climate-health curricular offerings across health professions institutions internationally, including existing climate-health educational offerings, method of teaching climate-health education, whether institutions are considering adding climate-health education, whether institutions received a positive response to adding climate-health curricula and/or encountered challenges in adding curricula, and opportunities to advance climate-health education. Results: Overall response rate to the survey was 53%, with 84 of 160 institutional responses collected; 59 of the responses (70%) were from schools/programs of public health, health sciences, or health professions; 15 (18%) were from medicine; 9 (11%) were from nursing; and 1 (1%) was from another type of health profession institution. Among respondents, 53 (63%) institutions offer climate-health education, most commonly as part of a required core course (41 [76%]). Sixty-one of 82 respondents (74%) reported that climate-health offerings are under discussion to add, 42 of 59 respondents (71%) encountered some challenges trying to institute the curriculum, and most respondents have received a positive response to adding content, mainly from students (39 of 58 [67%]), faculty (35 of 58 [60%]), and administration (23 of 58 [40%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Current climate-health educational offerings appear to vary considerably among health professions institutions. Students, faculty, and administration are important groups to engage when instituting curricula, and awareness, support, and resources may be able to assist in this effort.