Chronic Physical and Mental Health Conditions Associated With Employment Status in Veterans.

Introduction: Veterans commonly experience both poor health and employment difficulty. However, the research examining potential relationships between chronic physical and mental health conditions and employment in veterans has important limitations. This study examines those potential relationships using large-scale, nationally representative data. The authors' hypothesis was that veterans experiencing these conditions would be less likely to be employed than veterans without the conditions and, further, that there may be differences in these relationships when comparing male veterans with female veterans. Methods: The study team conducted a pooled cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative data from the 2004-2019 administrations of the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, which had items addressing health conditions, employment, and military experience. The authors assessed the relationship between health conditions and employment using multivariate logistic regression. Control variables included demographics, SES, family size, and survey year. Results: Veterans experiencing diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, emphysema, arthritis, serious hearing loss, poor self-reported mental health, poor self-reported health, depression, or psychological distress were less likely to be employed than veterans without those conditions, even after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Veterans with diabetes had 25% lesser odds of being employed than veterans without the condition (95% CI=0.65, 0.85). Veterans with increased likelihood of depression had 35% lesser odds of being employed than veterans without depression (95% CI=0.52, 0.81). Conclusions: This study adds evidence to the understanding of the role of chronic health conditions in employment status of veterans. The results support arguments for programs that aid veterans with both their health and their employment.

A systematic review for the impacts of global approaches to regulating electronic nicotine products.

Background: The rapid increase in electronic nicotine product (ENP) use among young people has been a global public health challenge, given the potential harm of ENPs and nicotine dependence. Many countries have recently introduced legislations to regulate ENPs, but the impacts of these policies are poorly understood. This systematic review aims to critically synthesise empirical studies on the effects of global regulations regarding ENPs on the prevalence of use, health outcomes and their determinants, using the 4A marketing mix framework (acceptability, affordability, accessibility and awareness). Methods: Following the PRISMA guideline, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, and APA PsycINFO databases from inception until June 14, 2022 and performed citation searches on the included studies. Reviewed literature was restricted to peer-reviewed, English-language articles. We included all pre-post and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the impacts of e-cigarette policies on the prevalence of ENP use and other health outcomes. A modified Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental studies was used for quality assessment. Due to heterogeneity of the included studies, we conducted a narrative synthesis of evidence. Results: Of 3991 unduplicated records screened, 48 (1.2%) met the inclusion criteria, most were from high-income countries in North America and Europe and 26 studies measured self-reported ENPs use. Flavour restrictions significantly decreased youth ENP use and taxation reduced adult use; mixed results were found for the impacts of age restrictions. Indoor vaping restrictions and the European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) did not seem to reduce ENP use based on existing studies. Changes in determinants such as sales and perceptions corroborated our conclusions. Few studies assessed the impacts of other regulations such as advertising restrictions and retail licensing requirements. Conclusions: Flavour restrictions and taxes have the strongest evidence to support effective control of ENPs, while others need powerful enforcement and meaningful penalties to ensure their effectiveness. Future research should focus on under-examined policies and differential impacts across sociodemographic characteristics and countries. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022337361.

Association Between Opioid Prescriptions and Non-US-Born Status in the US.

Importance: Overdose from opioids causes nearly 50 000 deaths in the US each year. Adverse consequences from opioid use are particularly pronounced among low-income and publicly insured individuals. However, little is known about patterns of opioid prescribing among non-US-born individuals in the US. Objective: To examine the association of opioid prescriptions with non-US-born status, particularly among patients clinically diagnosed with pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis assessed opioid prescriptions among US-born and non-US-born adults using the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Practitioner-verified binary variable for any opioid prescription, number of prescriptions received, and a count variable for number of days of prescribed medicine. Multivariable logistic and negative binomial regression adjusted for sex, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, poverty, insurance status, clinical diagnoses for acute or chronic pain, census region, and survey year. Results: Among all 48 162 respondents (mean [SD] age, 47.0 [18.1] years; 25 831 [53.6%] female), 14.2% of US-born and 7.0% of non-US-born individuals received at least 1 opioid prescription within a 12-month period. For those diagnosed with chronic pain, 25.5% of US-born individuals and 15.6% of non-US-born individuals received at least 1 opioid prescription within a 12-month period. In multivariable logistic regression, non-US-born individuals had 35% lower odds of receiving an opioid prescription than US-born individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74). In negative binomial regression adjusting for confounding factors, non-US-born individuals with chronic pain who were prescribed opioids received significantly fewer days' supply (50.0; 95% CI, 40.0-59.9) than US-born individuals (77.2; 95% CI, 72.7-81.6). Differences between US-born and non-US-born individuals were not statistically significant for patients with acute pain (16.7% [95% CI, 14.9%-18.4%] of US-born individuals received opioids vs 12.5% [95% CI, 9.3%-15.6%] of non-US-born individuals). Non-US-born individuals with less than 5 years of residency in the US were significantly less likely to receive a prescription for opioids than were those with longer residency after adjustment for type of pain and other confounding factors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.88). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that non-US-born individuals, particularly those with shorter US residency, are less likely to be prescribed opioids than US-born individuals.

Association between Having a Regular Health Provider and Access to Services Linked to Electronic Health Records.

OBJECTIVE: A regular care provider is an important measure of access to health services, but little is known about the association between having a regular provider and patients' access to services associated with electronic health records (EHR). Furthermore, the composition of the additional electronic services made available to patients is not well studied. METHODS: We analyzed the most recent data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS5-Cycle1, 2017, n = 3,285). We estimated a weighted multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association between having a regular provider (65.3%) and access to EHR (29%). Control variables were selected based on Andersen's Behavioral Model. RESULTS: In the adjusted model, participants with a regular provider had significantly greater access to an EHR (aOR 2.91, p < .001) compared to participants without a regular provider. Participants were more likely to have access to an EHR if they were females (aOR 1.56, p < .01), had a tablet computer (aOR 1.55, p < .05), smartphone (aOR 2.27, p < .01), a former smoker (aOR 1.67, p < .05) or had two or more chronic medical conditions (aOR 1.79, p < .01). DISCUSSION: Individuals who have a regular provider are roughly three times as likely to have access to services linked to an EHR. Access to an EHR enhances both potential and realized access to many healthcare services. CONCLUSION: The availability of a regular care provider impacts the "digital divide." The expansion of electronic health services intensifies the importance of a regular care provider.