RESUMO
Cannabis retailer locations used to investigate geographic cannabis access are frequently ascertained from two sources: 1) webservices which provide locations of cannabis retailers (e.g., Yelp) or 2) government-maintained registries. Characterizing the operating status and location information accuracy of cannabis retailer data sources on a state-by-state level can inform research examining the health implications of cannabis legalization policies. This study ascertained cannabis retailer name and location from webservices and government-maintained registries for 26 states and the District of Columbia legalizing cannabis sales in 2019. Validation subsamples were created using state-level sequential sampling. Phone surveys were conducted by trained researchers for webservice samples (n=790, November 2019 - May 2020) and government-maintained registry (n=859, February - June 2020) to ascertain information about operating status and location. Accuracy was calculated as the percent agreement among subsample and phone survey data. For operating status and location, webservice derived data was 78% (614/790) and 79% (484/611) accurate, whereas government-maintained registry derived data was 76% (657/859) and 95% (622/655) accurate, respectively. Fifty-nine percent (15/27) of states and the District of Columbia had over 80% accuracy for operating status and 48% (13/27) states had over 80% accuracy for location information with both data sources. However, government-maintained registry derived information was more accurate in 33% (9/27) states for operating status and 41% (11/27) states for location information. Both data sources had similar operating status accuracy. Research using spatial analysis may prefer government-maintained registry derived data due to high location information accuracy, whereas studies looking at broad trends across states may prefer webservice derived. State level COVID-19 restrictions had minimal impact on ascertainment of cannabis retailer operating status and location information via phone survey derived from webservices and government-maintained registries.
RESUMO
The present study conducted thematic analyses of tweets including #WhyIDidntReport (N = 500) to examine barriers to reporting sexual victimization. Barriers to reporting were identified across individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural levels of the social ecology. Common barriers to reporting included labeling of the experience, age, fear, privacy concerns, self-blame, betrayal/shock, the relation/power of the perpetrator, negative reactions to disclosure, and the belief-or personal experience-that reporting would not result in justice and societal norms.
Assuntos
Bullying , Vítimas de Crime , Delitos Sexuais , Revelação , Humanos , Comportamento SexualRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe a new multidisciplinary team fall prevention intervention for older adults who seek care in the emergency department (ED) after having a fall, assess its feasibility and acceptability, and review lessons learned during its initiation. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: Two urban academic EDs PARTICIPANTS: Adults 65 years old or older (n = 110) who presented to the ED within 7 days of a fall. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to a usual care (UC) and an intervention (INT) arm. Participants in the INT arm received a brief medication therapy management session delivered by a pharmacist and a fall risk assessment and plan by a physical therapist (PT). INT participants received referrals to outpatient services (eg, home safety evaluation, outpatient PT). MEASUREMENTS: We used participant, caregiver, and clinician surveys, as well as electronic health record review, to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 110 participants, the median participant age was 81 years old, 67% were female, 94% were white, and 16.3% had cognitive impairment. Of the 55 in the INT arm, all but one participant received the pharmacy consult (98.2%); the PT consult was delivered to 83.6%. Median consult time was 20 minutes for pharmacy and 20 minutes for PT. ED length of stay was not increased in the INT arm: UC 5.25 hours vs INT 5.0 hours (P < .94). After receiving the Geriatric Acute and Post-acute Fall Prevention Intervention (GAPcare), 100% of participants and 97.6% of clinicians recommended the pharmacy consult, and 95% of participants and 95.8% of clinicians recommended the PT consult. CONCLUSION: These findings support the feasibility and acceptability of the GAPcare model in the ED. A future larger randomized controlled trial is planned to determine whether GAPcare can reduce recurrent falls and healthcare visits in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:198-206, 2019.
