scholarly journals Framing the Local Context and Estimating the Health Impact of CPPW Obesity Prevention Strategies in Los Angeles County, 2010-2012

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 360-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Kuo ◽  
Brenda Robles ◽  
Justin G. Trogdon ◽  
Rachel Ferencik ◽  
Paul A. Simon ◽  
...  
1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 513-516
Author(s):  
Diana G. Garcia ◽  
Donnell P. Ewert ◽  
Laurene Mascola

AbstractObjective:To determine the proportion of Los Angeles County (LAC) hospitals offering obstetrical services that have postpartum and postabortion rubella vaccination policies.Design:A survey was sent to the infection control practitioners (ICPs) of all operational acute care hospitals (N = 133) in LAC in 1992. A reminder and second survey was mailed to ICPs who did not respond to the first mailing.Results:Of 75 hospitals with obstetrical departments, 56 (75%) responded. Thirty-four (61%) of the 56 respondent hospitals had postpartum rubella vaccination policies. Of the 34 hospitals with policies, 30 (88%) accepted only a written record of rubella seropositivity as proof of immunity, 30 (88%) screened women with unknown immunity status before hospital discharge, and 32 (94%) vaccinated susceptible women before hospital discharge. Of the 32 hospitals that performed induced abortions, only two (6%) provided screening and vaccination services for these women.Conclusion:Only 61% of hospitals in LAC offering obstetrical services had postpartum rubella vaccination policies while only minimal screening and vaccination occurred in association with abortion services. Widespread implementation of postabortion screening and vaccination, and more stringent compliance with Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for postpartum screening and vaccination in hospitals offering obstetrical services would reduce the number of rubella-susceptible women who have been missed by other prevention strategies.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e68586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daibin Zhong ◽  
Eugenia Lo ◽  
Renjie Hu ◽  
Marco E. Metzger ◽  
Robert Cummings ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 856-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Walter ◽  
Kelly Dumke ◽  
Ariana Oliva ◽  
Emily Caesar ◽  
Zoë Phillips ◽  
...  

Efforts to reverse the obesity epidemic require policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) change strategies. Despite the availability of evidence-based and other promising PSE interventions, limited evidence exists on the “how-to” of transitioning them into practice. For the past 13 years, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has been building capacity among community residents and other stakeholders to create effective community coalitions and to implement well-designed policy strategy campaigns using an evidence-based approach to policy change, the policy adoption model (PAM). Implementing a phase-based approach to policy change, the PAM was initially used to support the passage of over 140 tobacco control and prevention policies in Los Angeles County. Following these successes, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health applied the PAM to obesity prevention, operationalizing the policy process by training community residents and other stakeholders on the use of the model. The PAM has shown to be helpful in promoting PSE change in tobacco control and obesity prevention, suggesting a local-level model potentially applicable to other fields of public health seeking sustainable, community-driven policy change.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e113-e114
Author(s):  
Kathryn Backholer ◽  
Alison Beauchamp ◽  
Kylie Ball ◽  
Gavin Turrell ◽  
Jane Martin ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 56-63
Author(s):  
Josh Sides

In 1916, Cornelius Birket Johnson, a Los Angeles fruit farmer, killed the last known grizzly bear in Southern California and the second-to last confirmed grizzly bear in the entire state of California. Johnson was neither a sportsman nor a glory hound; he simply hunted down the animal that had been trampling through his orchard for three nights in a row, feasting on his grape harvest and leaving big enough tracks to make him worry for the safety of his wife and two young daughters. That Johnson’s quarry was a grizzly bear made his pastoral life in Big Tujunga Canyon suddenly very complicated. It also precipitated a quagmire involving a violent Scottish taxidermist, a noted California zoologist, Los Angeles museum administrators, and the pioneering mammalogist and Smithsonian curator Clinton Hart Merriam. As Frank S. Daggett, the founding director of the Los Angeles County Museum of History, Science and Art, wrote in the midst of the controversy: “I do not recollect ever meeting a case where scientists, crooks, and laymen were so inextricably mingled.” The extermination of a species, it turned out, could bring out the worst in people.


2016 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-16
Author(s):  
Brian Kovalesky

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, during the height of protests and actions by civil rights activists around de facto school segregation in the Los Angeles area, the residents of a group of small cities just southeast of the City of Los Angeles fought to break away from the Los Angeles City Schools and create a new, independent school district—one that would help preserve racially segregated schools in the area. The “Four Cities” coalition was comprised of residents of the majority white, working-class cities of Vernon, Maywood, Huntington Park, and Bell—all of which had joined the Los Angeles City Schools in the 1920s and 1930s rather than continue to operate local districts. The coalition later expanded to include residents of the cities of South Gate, Cudahy, and some unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, although Vernon was eventually excluded. The Four Cities coalition petitioned for the new district in response to a planned merger of the Los Angeles City Schools—until this time comprised of separate elementary and high school districts—into the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The coalition's strategy was to utilize a provision of the district unification process that allowed citizens to petition for reconfiguration or redrawing of boundaries. Unification was encouraged by the California State Board of Education and legislature in order to combine the administrative functions of separate primary and secondary school districts—the dominant model up to this time—to better serve the state's rapidly growing population of children and their educational needs, and was being deliberated in communities across the state and throughout Los Angeles County. The debates at the time over school district unification in the Greater Los Angeles area, like the one over the Four Cities proposal, were inextricably tied to larger issues, such as taxation, control of community institutions, the size and role of state and county government, and racial segregation. At the same time that civil rights activists in the area and the state government alike were articulating a vision of public schools that was more inclusive and demanded larger-scale, consolidated administration, the unification process reveals an often-overlooked grassroots activism among residents of the majority white, working-class cities surrounding Los Angeles that put forward a vision of exclusionary, smaller-scale school districts based on notions of local control and what they termed “community identity.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document