An analysis of Texas's school based HPV vaccine mandate: A public health risk communication failure: HPVETO!

Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is of public health concern because persistent infection with certain HPV types can cause cervical cancer. In response to a nationwide push for cervical cancer legislation, Texas Governor Rick Perry bypassed the traditional legislative process and issued an executive order mandating compulsory HPV vaccinations for all female public school students prior to their entrance in the sixth grade. By bypassing the legislative process Governor Perry did not effectively mitigate the risk perception issues that arose around the need for and usefulness of the vaccine mandate. This policy paper uses a social policy paradigm to identify perception as the key intervening factor on how the public responds to risk information. To demonstrate how the HPV mandate failed, it analyzes four factors, economics, politics, knowledge and culture, that shape perception and influence the public's response. By understanding the factors that influence the public's perception, public health practitioners and policy makers can more effectively create preventive health policy at the state level. ^

Planning and implementation efficacy as a determinant of health risk communication outcomes: Case studies of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)

This study was conducted under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Risk Communication and Education of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP) to determine how Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are communicating information about health risk, what factors contributed to effective communication efforts, and what specific principles, strategies, and practices best promote more effective health risk communication outcomes.^ Member agencies of the Subcommittee submitted examples of health risk communication activities or decisions they perceived to be effective and some examples of cases they thought had not been as effective as desired. Of the 10 case studies received, 7 were submitted as examples of effective health risk communication, and 3, as examples of less effective communication.^ Information contained in the 10 case studies describing the respective agencies' health risk communication strategies and practices was compared with EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication, since similar rules were not found in any PHS agency. EPA's rules are: (1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. (2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. (3) Listen to the public's specific concerns. (4) Be honest, frank, and open. (5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. (6) Meet the needs of the media. (7) Speak clearly and with compassion.^ On the basis of case studies analysis, the Subcommittee, in their attempts to design and implement effective health risk communication campaigns, identified a number of areas for improvement among the agencies. First, PHS agencies should consider developing a focus specific to health risk communication (i.e., office or specialty resource). Second, create a set of generally accepted practices and guidelines for effective implementation and evaluation of PHS health risk communication activities and products. Third, organize interagency initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and visibility of health risk communication issues and trends within and between PHS agencies.^ PHS agencies identified some specific implementation strategies the CCEHRP might consider pursuing to address the major recommendations. Implementation strategies common to PHS agencies emerged in the following five areas: (1) program development, (2) building partnerships, (3) developing training, (4) expanding information technologies, and (5) conducting research and evaluation. ^

Physician perceptions of risk regarding mood disorders and pharmacological management during pregnancy: What is current practice?

Mood disorders are the most common form of mental illness and one of the leading causes of morbidity worldwide. Major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder have a lifetime prevalence of 16.2% and 4.4%, respectively. Women comprise a substantial proportion of this population, and an estimated 500,000 pregnancies each year involve women with a psychiatric condition. Management with psychotropic medications is considered standard of care for most patients with mood disorders. However, many of these medications are known human teratogens. Because pregnant women with mood disorders face a high risk of relapse if unmanaged, the obstetrician faces a unique challenge in providing the best care to both mother and baby. It has been suggested that many obstetricians overestimate the teratogenic risks associated with psychotropic medications, while concurrently underestimating the risks associated with unmanaged mood disorders. This may be due a knowledge gap regarding the most current teratogen information, and lack of official management guidelines. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine the current knowledge base of obstetricians regarding the teratogenic effects of common psychotropic medications, as wells as to capture current management practices for pregnant women with mood disorders. A total of 117 Texas obstetricians responded to a survey regarding teratogen knowledge and management practice. It was common for respondents to encounter women who disclose both having a mood disorder and taking a psychotropic medication during pregnancy. Many respondents did not utilize up-to-date drug counseling resources, and were unaware of or over-estimated the teratogenic risks of common medications used to treat mood disorders. Finally, many respondents reported wanting to refer pregnant patients with mood disorders to psychiatrists for co-management, but are reportedly restricted in doing so due to accessibility or insurance issues. This study demonstrates that there is a knowledge gap among obstetricians regarding the teratogenicity of common psychotropic medications utilized to manage a patient population they frequently encounter. Further, obstetricians have vastly different risk perceptions of these medications, resulting in various management approaches and recommendations. Future research should focus on establishing standard practice guidelines, as well as better accessibility to psychiatric services for pregnant women.

Drinking water quality perception along the U.S.-Mexico border

Drinking water-related exposures within populations living in the United States-Mexico border region, particularly among Hispanics, is an area that is largely unknown. Specifically, perceptions that may affect water source selection is an issue that has not been fully addressed. This study evaluates drinking water quality perceptions in a mostly Hispanic community living along the United States-Mexico border, a community also facing water scarcity issues. Using a survey that was administered during two seasons (winter and summer), data were collected from a total of 608 participants, of which 303 were living in the United States and 305 in Mexico. A (random) convenience sampling technique was used to select households and those interviewed were over 18 years of age. Statistically significant differences were observed involving country of residence (p=0.002). Specifically, those living in Mexico reported a higher use of bottled water than those living in the United States. Perception factors, especially taste, were cited as main reasons for not selecting unfiltered tap water as a primary drinking water source. Understanding what influences drinking water source preference can aid in the development of risk communication strategies regarding water quality. ^

Future pandemic influenza control (FPIC) related strategic management plan based on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza review of health policy decisions, their practice and implications

This cross-sectional study is based on the qualitative and quantitative research design to review health policy decisions, their practice and implications during 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States and globally. The “Future Pandemic Influenza Control (FPIC) related Strategic Management Plan” was developed based on the incorporation of the “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza (2005)” for the United States from the U.S. Homeland Security Council and “The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector (2006)” from the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Committee for use by the public health agencies in the United States as well as globally. The “global influenza experts’ survey” was primarily designed and administered via email through the “Survey Monkey” system to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic experts as the study respondents. The effectiveness of this plan was confirmed and the approach of the study questionnaire was validated to be convenient and the excellent quality of the questions provided an efficient opportunity to the study respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of predefined strategies/interventions for future pandemic influenza control.^ The quantitative analysis of the responses to the Likert-scale based questions in the survey about predefined strategies/interventions, addressing five strategic issues to control future pandemic influenza. The effectiveness of strategies defined as pertinent interventions in this plan was evaluated by targeting five strategic issues regarding pandemic influenza control. For the first strategic issue pertaining influenza prevention and pre pandemic planning; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for strategy (1a) 87.5%, strategy (1b) 91.7% and strategy (1c) 83.3%. The assessment of the priority level for strategies to address the strategic issue no. (1); (1b (High Priority) > 1a (Medium Priority) > 1c (Low Priority) based on the available resources of the developing and developed countries. For the second Strategic Issue encompassing the preparedness and communication regarding pandemic influenza control; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (2a) 95.6%, strategy (2b) 82.6%, strategy (2c) 91.3% and Strategy (2d) 87.0%. The assessment of the priority level for these strategies to address the strategic issue no. (2); (2a (highest priority) > 2c (high priority) >2d (medium priority) > 2b (low priority). For the third strategic issue encompassing the surveillance and detection of pandemic influenza; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (3a) 90.9% and strategy (3b) 77.3%. The assessment of the priority level for theses strategies to address the strategic Issue No. (3) (3a (high priority) > 3b (medium/low priority). For the fourth strategic issue pertaining the response and containment of pandemic influenza; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (4a) 63.6%, strategy (4b) 81.8%, strategy (4c) 86.3%, and strategy (4d) 86.4%. The assessment of the priority level for these strategies to address the strategic issue no. (4); (4d (highest priority) > 4c (high priority) > 4b (medium priority) > 4a (low priority). The fifth strategic issue about recovery from influenza and post pandemic planning; the confirmed effectiveness (agreement) for the strategy (5a) 68.2%, strategy (5b) 36.3% and strategy (5c) 40.9%. The assessment of the priority level for strategies to address the strategic issue no. (5); (5a (high priority) > 5c (medium priority) > 5b (low priority).^ The qualitative analysis of responses to the open-ended questions in the study questionnaire was performed by means of thematic content analysis. The following recurrent or common “themes” were determined for the future implementation of various predefined strategies to address five strategic issues from the “FPIC related Strategic Management Plan” to control future influenza pandemics. (1) Pre Pandemic Influenza Prevention, (2) Seasonal Influenza Control, (3) Cost Effectiveness of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPI), (4) Raising Global Public Awareness, (5) Global Influenza Vaccination Campaigns, (6)Priority for High Risk Population, (7) Prompt Accessibility and Distribution of Influenza Vaccines and Antiviral Drugs, (8) The Vital Role of Private Sector, (9) School Based Influenza Containment, (10) Efficient Global Risk Communication, (11) Global Research Collaboration, (12) The Critical Role of Global Public Health Organizations, (13) Global Syndromic Surveillance and Surge Capacity and (14) Post Pandemic Recovery and Lessons Learned. The future implementation of these strategies with confirmed effectiveness to primarily “reduce the overall response time’ in the process of ‘early detection’, ‘strategies (interventions) formulation’ and their ‘implementation’ to eventually ensure the following health outcomes: (a) reduced influenza transmission, (b) prompt and effective influenza treatment and control, (c) reduced influenza related morbidity and mortality.^

Academic medical centers: A framework for strategic repositioning

This study sought to understand the elements affecting the success or failure of strategic repositioning efforts by academic medical centers (AMC). The research question was: What specific elements in the process appear to be most important in determining the success or failure of an AMC.s strategic repositioning? Where success is based on the longterm sustainability of the new position.^ "An organization's strategic position is its perceptual location relative to others" (Gershon, 2003). Hence, strategic repositioning represents a shift from one strategic position within an environment to another (H. Mintzberg, 1987a). A deteriorating value proposition coupled with an unsustainable national health care financing system is forcing AMCs to change their strategic position. Where the value proposition is defined as the health outcome per dollar spent. ^ AMCs are of foundational importance to our health care system. They educate our new physicians, generate significant scientific breakthroughs, and care for our most difficult patients. Yet, their strategic, financial and business acumen leaves them particularly vulnerable in a changing environment. ^ After a literature review revealed limited writing on this subject, the research question was addressed using three separate but parallel exploratory case study inquiries of AMCs that recently underwent a strategic repositioning. Participating in the case studies were the Baylor College of Medicine, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, and the University of Texas Medical Branch.^ Each case study consisted of two major research segments; a thorough documentation review followed by semi-structured interviews of selected members of their governance board, executive and faculty leadership teams. While each case study.s circumstances varied, their response to the research question, as extracted through thematic coding and analysis of the interviews, had a high degree of commonality.^ The results identified managing the strategic risk surrounding the repositioning and leadership accountability as the two foundational elements of success or failure. Metrics and communication were important process elements. They both play a major role in managing the strategic repositioning risk communication loop. Sustainability, the final element, was the outcome sought.^ Factors leading to strategic repositioning included both internal and external pressures and were primarily financial or mission based. Timing was an important consideration as was the selection of the strategic repositioning endpoint.^ In conclusion, a framework for the strategic repositioning of AMCs was offered that integrates the findings of this study; the elements of success, the factors leading to strategic repositioning, and the risk communication loop. ^