Search

Intimate partner violence is a preventable public health problem affecting more than 12 million people in the United States annually. The immense burden of victimization is most often borne by women. Nearly one in two female homicide victims are killed by current or former partners (more than 50% of which involve firearms). Firearm-related morbidity and mortality are concentrated where firearm ownership is most prevalent and firearm laws are least restrictive, indicating the potential for law to serve as an intervention. Understanding intricacies within laws and how they vary is critical to studying their influence on health. This study is the first to use the scientific legal mapping technique of policy surveillance to create legal data by systematically collecting and coding laws that authorize or require courts to prohibit offenders subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) and temporary restraining orders (TROs) from purchasing and possessing firearms ("firearm prohibitor" laws). These data measure key provisions of federal and state laws from 1991 to 2016, including whether the law includes a firearm prohibition, who qualifies as an intimate partner, notice and hearing requirements, whether the prohibition occurs automatically or through judicial discretion, and if the law permits or requires the relinquishment or removal of firearms. The federal law, enacted in 1994 (and reauthorized in 2022), only protects qualifying victims that obtain final DVROs. States can mirror or go beyond federal measures. From 1991 to 2016, 38 states enacted a firearm prohibitor law through DVROs (37 states), TROs (20 states), or both (19 states). Today, survivors suffer from a sluggish and fragmented legal system leading to the unequal protection of victims based on where they happen to live. This research provides an in-depth descriptive analysis of this complex and nuanced legal system, recommendations to spur policy reform, and longitudinal data for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To understand clinicians' current teclistamab step-up dosing (SUD) model and how they envision future administration models, as well as perceived barriers and facilitators to these models in day-to-day clinical practice. Interviews of clinicians with RW experience administering teclistamab, with a subsequent roundtable discussion to discuss interview findings. Topics of interest included managing adverse events (AE), and handling logistics of SUD and transition of care (ToC). 20 clinicians representing 19 practices participated. Of 14 practices administering inpatient teclistamab SUD, 12 (86%) utilized a single admission. A day 1-3-5 dosing schedule with a 7-day length of stay was planned in 10/14 (71%). The remaining 5 practices employed outpatient or hybrid SUD. SUD models depended on cellular therapy experience, patient volume, and monitoring capabilities. Clinicians desired to administer SUD outpatient for convenience and reduced healthcare resource use. 11% of practices reported using tocilizumab for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) prophylaxis, whilst it was uniformly used to treat grade 2+ CRS. Corticosteroids were the preferred treatment for neurotoxicity. Infection prophylaxis with intravenous immunoglobulin was reported by 89% of practices. Patient- and institution-level factors affected decision-making of transitioning patients back to referring sites after SUD. The results consolidated practice-based experiences and indicated diverse RW SUD models and patient management strategies in practices with familiarity with teclistamab AE management and ToC protocols. Inpatient SUD is common, with expectations that approaches will evolve toward outpatient or community-based administration. Further research is needed to investigate outcomes of different care models and AE management strategies. Multiple myeloma is a blood cancer that forms in plasma cells. Teclistamab is a new treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who have received prior treatment but for whom their multiple myeloma has come back or stopped responding to treatment multiple times. Because teclistamab works differently than other existing multiple myeloma treatments, there is a need to understand how oncologists who have experience with teclistamab are managing their patients in order to inform best practices for use by more healthcare providers. We interviewed oncologists that treat patients with multiple myeloma to understand their experiences with teclistamab, including how they manage initial dosing (step-up dosing) processes, treat adverse events, and transition patients to outpatient or external clinics for continued care. Most practices were administering step-up dosing of teclistamab in an inpatient setting soon after teclistamab became a treatment option, with a high level of desire to move the initial dosing to an outpatient setting in the near future. Those that were already administering step-up dosing in an outpatient setting had models unique to their practice. Oncologists described numerous processes for monitoring and managing adverse events of the treatment, including treating patients with preventative medications and regularly monitoring vital signs throughout step-up dosing. Oncologists expected that their teclistamab administration processes will likely evolve over time as they gain more familiarity with the treatment, and will need to consider patient-level factors to administer step-up dosing in an outpatient setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Law is an important factor in the diffusion of syringe services programs (SSPs). This study measures the current status of, and 5-year change in, state laws governing SSP operations and possession of syringes by participants. Methods: Legal researchers developed a cross-sectional data set measuring key features of state laws and regulations governing the possession and distribution of syringes across the 50 US states and the District of Columbia in effect on August 1, 2019. We compared these data with previously collected data on laws as of August 1, 2014. Results: Thirty-nine states (including the District of Columbia) had laws in effect on August 1, 2019, that removed legal impediments to, explicitly authorized, and/or regulated SSPs. Thirty-three states had 1 or more laws consistent with legal possession of syringes by SSP participants under at least some circumstances. Changes from 2014 to 2019 included an increase of 14 states explicitly authorizing SSPs by law and an increase of 12 states with at least 1 provision reducing legal barriers to SSPs. Since 2014, the number of states explicitly authorizing SSPs nearly doubled, and the new states included many rural, southern, or midwestern states that had been identified as having poor access to SSPs, as well as states at high risk for HIV and hepatitis C virus outbreaks. Substantial legal barriers to SSP operation and participant syringe possession remained in >20% of US states. Conclusion: Legal barriers to effective operation of SSPs have declined but continue to hinder the prevention and reduction of drug-related harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rural Kentucky is an epicenter of hepatitis C(HCV), especially among young adults who inject drugs. While the Risk Environment Framework (REF) has been used widely to study and address socio-ecological determinants of infectious disease among people who inject drugs (PWID), it has been almost exclusively applied to urban environments. Applying REF to rural environments can enhance our understanding of the drivers of HCV epidemics in these hard-hit areas, and inform the creation and implementation of harm reduction interventions in this local context.Methods: Participants were recruited between March and August 2017 via community-based outreach methods (e.g., cookouts, flyers) and peer referral. Individuals who met eligibility criteria (aged 18-35, recently used prescription opioids and/or heroin to get high, lived in one of the 5 target counties) participated indepth, semi-structured interviews. The interview guide was informed by the REF, and covered HCV-related risk behaviors and environmental features that shaped vulnerability to engaging in these behaviors. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using constructivist grounded-theory methods.Results: Participants (N=19) described multiple intersecting risk environment features that shaped vulnerability to HCV transmission. Economic decline generated intergenerational poverty, dwindling employment prospects, and diminished social enrichment opportunities that collectively contributed to substance misuse and risky injection practices. Geographic isolation, lack of collective knowledge about HCV transmission risks, scarce harm reduction services, familial poverty, and fear of law enforcement interacted to increase the odds of people injecting in "trap houses" (akin to shooting galleries) or secluded areas, spaces in which they rushed to inject and shared injection equipment. Pervasive stigma was a structural barrier to adopting, expanding, and using harm reduction services.Conclusion: This exploratory study identified features of rural risk environments that may contribute to significant HCV burdens in Appalachian Kentucky. Findings signal the importance of expanding proven harm reduction strategies and anti-stigma interventions tailored to rural contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article assesses the role of law in achieving health equity through housing in the U.S. Also cited are the creative applications of law to enhance health equity through housing, the relationship between housing, health, and well-being, the cases of racial segregation in housing, and the adverse affects of zoning laws in achieving housing equity.

Background: Though overdose rates have been increasing in US rural areas for two decades, little is known about the rural risk environment for overdoses. This qualitative study explored the risk environment for overdoses among young adults in Eastern Kentucky, a rural epicenter of the US opioid epidemic.Methods: Participants were recruited via community-based outreach. Eligibility criteria included living in one of five rural Eastern Kentucky counties; being aged 18-35; and using opioids to get high in the past 30 days. Semi-structured interviews explored the rural risk environment, and strategies to prevent overdose and dying from an overdose. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using constructivist grounded-theory methods.Results: In this sample (N = 19), participants reported using in a range of locations, including homes and outdoor settings; concerns about community stigma and law enforcement shaped the settings where participants used opioids and the strategies they deployed in these settings to prevent an overdose, and to survive an overdose. Almost half of participants reported using opioids in a "trap house" or other dealing locations, often to evade police after buying drugs, and reported that others present pressed them to use more than usual. If an overdose occurred in this setting, however, these same people might refuse to call EMS to protect themselves from arrest. Outdoor settings presented particular vulnerabilities to overdose and dying from an overdose. Most participants reported using opioids outdoors, where they skipped overdose prevention steps to reduce their risk of arrest; they worried that no one would find them if they overdosed, and that cell phone coverage would be too weak to summon EMS.Conclusion: Findings suggest that initiatives to reduce overdoses in Eastern Kentucky would be strengthened by de-escalating the War on Drugs and engaging law enforcement in initiatives to protect the health of people who use opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]