Conclusion

2019 ◽  
pp. 131-158
Author(s):  
Emily Mendenhall

The conclusion returns to the simple argument that culture and experience fundamentally shape how diabetes is enacted cross-culturally. This chapter reflects upon the four ethnographic case studies and proposes five ways in which anthropologists and public health practitioners should "rethink diabetes." First, it argues that diabetes must be understood as a disease of poverty as opposed to exclusively one of modernization. Second, it argues that diabetes is always syndemic, especially when it confronts the complexity of economic insecurity. Third, diagnosis is perhaps the most influential feature of syndemic suffering, which reveals how diabetes itself is experienced completely differently in the body pre- and post-diagnosis. Fourth, the social life of diabetes contributes to fundamentally shifting what it means to have and live with diabetes across contexts. Finally, the conclusion suggests that interventions for diabetes should be employ syndemic thinking by working both upstream to address social policy and downstream to navigate clinical challenges and community-based solutions.

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 850-854
Author(s):  
Eliyas K. Asfaw ◽  
Emily S. Guo ◽  
Sarah S. Jang ◽  
Swathi R. Komarivelli ◽  
Katherine A. Lewis ◽  
...  

We are the next generation of public health practitioners. As public health students, we acknowledge that the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic will continue to fundamentally alter the field that we are preparing to enter. We will be the first wave of public health professionals whose education is being shaped by this pandemic. For decades to come, we will be working to address the impacts of this pandemic. In this commentary, we are lending our voice to discuss and highlight the importance of considering the intersections of various determinants of health and COVID-19, including education, food insecurity, housing instability, and economic hardship. We provide a discussion on what is being done across the United States in attempts to reduce the growing health inequities. As the next generation of public health leaders, we believe that only by investing in these issues can we begin to address the social and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.


2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (9) ◽  
pp. 806-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Rideout ◽  
Dianne Oickle

Health equity is increasingly present as an overarching goal in public health policy frameworks across the globe. Public health actions to support health equity are challenging because solutions to the root causes of health inequities often lie outside of the health sector, and a specific role for environmental public health practitioners has not been clearly articulated. The regulatory nature of the environmental public health profession means that their role is particularly ambiguous. Still, environmental public health practitioners are well situated to identify and respond to factors that contribute to health inequities because of their role as front-line professionals who interact with a wide cross-sector of the population. This Glossary, rooted primarily in the Canadian context but drawing on lessons from elsewhere, describes environmental public health regulatory practice in relation to health equity, including approaches that practitioners can use to contribute to addressing the social determinants of health.


2019 ◽  
pp. 152483991986522
Author(s):  
Kristin Monnard ◽  
Maureen R. Benjamins ◽  
Jana L. Hirschtick ◽  
Myles Castro ◽  
Pamela T. Roesch

Background. Conventionally, public health researchers disseminate their work to peers via academic journals and conferences, with little emphasis on sharing results across sectors or with community members. To improve translation of health research into practice, it is essential to use a broader “solutions-focused” approach that includes strategic dissemination of findings. Methods. An urban research institute in Chicago, IL, leveraged knowledge transfer and community engagement principles to disseminate the results of a large, community-driven population health survey to a diverse set of stakeholders. We designed dissemination activities that (1) co-created knowledge by, for, and with communities; (2) shared survey results widely; and (3) minimized barriers to accessing and using public health data. Results. We tailored dissemination to specific audiences, including community residents, public health practitioners, and academic partners. We communicated key messages via various mechanisms, such as community forums, health profiles and videos, and a media event. Conclusions. With dedicated planning, staff, and funding, it is feasible for public health researchers to disseminate findings to diverse audiences using a community-engaged approach. To improve the capacity of public health practitioners in this critical skill, more examples of community-focused dissemination activities are warranted.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter van der Graaf ◽  
Lindsay Blank ◽  
Eleanor Holding ◽  
Elizabeth Goyder

Abstract Background The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013–2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School. Methods We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20). Results Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success’ of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Stoto ◽  
R Piltch-Loeb ◽  
R Wolfe ◽  
R Albrandt ◽  
A Melnick

Abstract Issue Clark County experienced a measles outbreak that challenged public health authorities. Description of the practice: We conducted a formal After Action Review with state and local health officials, school officials, and others to identify lessons for public health practitioners facing future outbreaks. Results Following the early identification of measles in a child who had recently arrived from Ukraine, active surveillance identified 71 confirmed cases, most in unvaccinated persons under 18 years of age. 4,138 contacts were traced and public health personnel made daily monitoring calls to 816. 53 potential exposure sites in healthcare facilities, schools and other public places were identified and communicated to the public. As a social distancing measure, unvaccinated students, teachers, and staff were excluded from schools in which exposure had occurred. Ascertaining susceptibility status was challenging. The national anti-vaccination sentiment and a parallel outbreak in a New York religious community created challenges in representing community risk while avoiding stigmatization of a community in which the first reported case was identified. Rather than respond to every false claim on social media, the health department developed talking points about emerging issues and engaged the community in dialogue. Lessons Responding to the measles outbreak required innovative approaches to surveillance and contact tracing, social distancing (school exclusions), and emergency risk communication. The response required extensive coordinated efforts of the county and state health departments, school systems, and many other organizations. Mutual aid enabled an influx of resources but managing the surge of responders proved challenging. Key messages Public health emergencies require effective emergency management practices. Carefully conducted After Action Reviews of health emergencies can help public health practitioners identify challenges and innovative practices.


Vaccine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (19) ◽  
pp. 3423-3427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tasha Epp ◽  
Shannon Waldner ◽  
Judith Wright ◽  
Phil Curry ◽  
Hugh G. Townsend ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul L. Knechtges ◽  
Gregory D. Kearney ◽  
Stephanie L. Richards

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document