Zoning and the built environment: A public health analysis of zoning in Austin, Texas

The built environment is part of the physical environment made by people and for people. Because the built environment is such a ubiquitous component of the environment, it acts as an important pathway in determining health outcomes. Zoning, a type of urban planning policy, is one of the most important mechanisms connecting the built environment to public health. This policy analysis research paper explores how zoning regulations in Austin, Texas promote or prohibit the development of a healthy built environment. A systematic literature review was obtained from Active Living Research, which contained literature published about the relationships between the built environment, physical activity, and health. The results of these studies identified the following four components of the built environment that were associated to health: access to recreational facilities, sprawl and residential density, land use mix, and sidewalks and their walkability. A hierarchy analysis was then performed to demonstrate the association between these aspects of the built environment and health outcomes such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and general health. Once these associations had been established, the components of the built environment were adapted into the evaluation criteria used to conduct a public health analysis of Austin's zoning ordinance. A total of eighty-eight regulations were identified to be related to these components and their varying associations to human health. Eight regulations were projected to have a negative association to health, three would have both a positive and negative association simultaneously, and nine were indeterminable with the information obtained through the literature review. The remaining sixty-eight regulations were projected to be associated in a beneficial manner to human health. Therefore, it was concluded that Austin's zoning ordinance would have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the public's health based on identified associations between the built environment and health outcomes.^

Pandemic influenza control in Europe and the constraints resulting from incoherent public health laws.

Background With the emergence of influenza H1N1v the world is facing its first 21st century global pandemic. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza H5N1 prompted development of pandemic preparedness plans. National systems of public health law are essential for public health stewardship and for the implementation of public health policy[1]. International coherence will contribute to effective regional and global responses. However little research has been undertaken on how law works as a tool for disease control in Europe. With co-funding from the European Union, we investigated the extent to which laws across Europe support or constrain pandemic preparedness planning, and whether national differences are likely to constrain control efforts. Methods We undertook a survey of national public health laws across 32 European states using a questionnaire designed around a disease scenario based on pandemic influenza. Questionnaire results were reviewed in workshops, analysing how differences between national laws might support or hinder regional responses to pandemic influenza. Respondents examined the impact of national laws on the movements of information, goods, services and people across borders in a time of pandemic, the capacity for surveillance, case detection, case management and community control, the deployment of strategies of prevention, containment, mitigation and recovery and the identification of commonalities and disconnects across states. Results Results of this study show differences across Europe in the extent to which national pandemic policy and pandemic plans have been integrated with public health laws. We found significant differences in legislation and in the legitimacy of strategic plans. States differ in the range and the nature of intervention measures authorized by law, the extent to which borders could be closed to movement of persons and goods during a pandemic, and access to healthcare of non-resident persons. Some states propose use of emergency powers that might potentially override human rights protections while other states propose to limit interventions to those authorized by public health laws. Conclusion These differences could create problems for European strategies if an evolving influenza pandemic results in more serious public health challenges or, indeed, if a novel disease other than influenza emerges with pandemic potential. There is insufficient understanding across Europe of the role and importance of law in pandemic planning. States need to build capacity in public health law to support disease prevention and control policies. Our research suggests that states would welcome further guidance from the EU on management of a pandemic, and guidance to assist in greater commonality of legal approaches across states.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments of 1991 : hearings before the Subcommittee on Environmental Protection of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, first session, on S. 976 ... June 5, 6, 18; July 24 and 25, 1991.

Shipping list no.: 91-756-P (pt. 1).

Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines. Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999. Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively. Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

IPH response to Health and Social Care Board and Public Health Agency Community Development Strategy

The Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) and the Public Health Agency (PHA) launched a new Community Development Strategy for public consultation.  The HSCB and PHA want to see strong, resilient communities where everyone has good health and wellbeing, places where people look out for each other and have community pride in where they live. The HSCB and PHA seek a number of benefits from implementing this strategy including; a reduction in health and wellbeing inequalities, which also means addressing the social factors that affect health; strengthening partnership working with service users, the community and voluntary sectors and other organisations; strengthening families and communities; supporting volunteering and making best use of our resources. Key points from the IPH summary include IPH welcome the Community Development Strategy as an approach to enhance health and wellbeing and tackle health inequalities in Northern Ireland.   IPH recommend the current three strategy documents (Full and summary versions and the Performance Management Framework) are merged into one document for greater clarity. Reference to the Performance Management Framework is required in the main body of the text is to ensure good practice is implemented. IPH welcome the focus on tackling health inequalities using community development approaches however the contribution of community development approaches needs to be highlighted. HIA is a tool to support community engagement and provides a mechanism for HSCB and PHA to support the implementation of this strategy.

Smoking and Public Health: A Review of Reviews of Interventions to Increase Smoking Cessation, Reduce Smoking Initiation and Prevent Further Uptake of Smoking - Evidence Briefing

This evidence briefing collates review-level evidence of interventions including those targeted at pregnant women and evidence for tackling health inequalities in smoking.

Smoking and Public Health: A Review of Reviews of Interventions to Increase Smoking Cessation, Reduce Smoking Initiation and Prevent Further Uptake of Smoking - Summary

The briefing identifies gaps in primary and review-level research and makes a number of recommendations, including further measures to address health inequalities.

The cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of nalmefene added to psychosocial support for the reduction of alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels: a Markov model.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nalmefene combined with psychosocial support is cost-effective compared with psychosocial support alone for reducing alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels (DRLs) as defined by the WHO, and to evaluate the public health benefit of reducing harmful alcohol-attributable diseases, injuries and deaths. DESIGN: Decision modelling using Markov chains compared costs and effects over 5 years. SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: The model considered the licensed population for nalmefene, specifically adults with both alcohol dependence and high/very high DRLs, who do not require immediate detoxification and who continue to have high/very high DRLs after initial assessment. DATA SOURCES: We modelled treatment effect using data from three clinical trials for nalmefene (ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941)). Baseline characteristics of the model population, treatment resource utilisation and utilities were from these trials. We estimated the number of alcohol-attributable events occurring at different levels of alcohol consumption based on published epidemiological risk-relation studies. Health-related costs were from UK sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and number of alcohol-attributable harmful events avoided. RESULTS: Nalmefene in combination with psychosocial support had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5204 per QALY gained, and was therefore cost-effective at the £20,000 per QALY gained decision threshold. Sensitivity analyses showed that the conclusion was robust. Nalmefene plus psychosocial support led to the avoidance of 7179 alcohol-attributable diseases/injuries and 309 deaths per 100,000 patients compared to psychosocial support alone over the course of 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Nalmefene can be seen as a cost-effective treatment for alcohol dependence, with substantial public health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was developed based on data from three randomised clinical trials: ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941).