HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE: ITS INFLUENCE ON THE DIETARY QUALITY OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS, 1977-78 (UNITED STATES, NATIONWIDE FOOD CONSUMPTION SURVEY)

Using analysis of variance, household data collected in the Spring portion of the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture were analyzed to examine the relationship between household characteristics and dietary quality of the household food supply. Results indicated that head of household structure was a statistically significant variable, with female headed households having higher dietary quality.^ Further analysis indicated that neither race, degree of urbanization, regional location, the education level of the female head, nor her employment status were significant variables in influencing dietary quality. The influence of head of household structure remained significant when these variables were controlled. However, income, household size, and family life cycle stage had statistically significant effects on dietary quality, and when individually controlled, the influence of head of household structure disappeared. ^

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.^

Investigating the effects of the 2007 Texas tobacco tax increase on the smoking behavior of adults

Smoking is major cause of premature mortality and morbidity in the United States. The health consequences of tobacco usage are increasingly concentrated in minority and lower socioeconomic groups. One of the most effective means of deterring tobacco consumption and generating revenue to fund prevention activities is the levying of excise taxes. In 2007 the state of Texas increased the excise tax on cigarettes by $1.00 per pack. This study sought to determine if there was a significant effect on smoking prevalence in the state by examining Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data for two years leading up to the tax increase-2005 and 2006- and two years post tax increase -2007 and 2008. Results were compared against a chi square distribution and three multiple logistic regression models were created to adjust for race/ethnicity, age, education and income. Results from this study show that there was not a significant decrease in smoking prevalence for most of the groups stratified by age, income and ethnicity. There was not a significant decrease in the younger adults aged 18-34 by income, ethnicity, or education. Smoking prevalence increased for some groups, e.g., Hispanic females. In the regression models, the tax effect was not significant. While overall prevalence decreased by 9%, there were not significant reductions among non-White or Hispanic survey participants. Taxed sales dropped by approximately 17% according to the Texas Comptroller. Without BRFSS data measuring daily cigarette consumption among current smokers, now not assessed, it is impossible to determine whether the discrepancy in reported prevalence and taxes sales is attributable to consumption of fewer cigarettes among smokers or tax avoidance.^