Electric scooters (e-scooters) are an increasingly popular form of transportation in urban areas. While research on this topic has focused primarily on injuries, there are multiple mechanisms by which e-scooter share programs may impact health. The aim of this study is to explore the health-related behaviors of e-scooter users and to discuss their implications for public health. Data were collected using an online survey emailed to registered e-scooter users. A total of 1070 users completed the survey. Descriptive variable statistics and chi-squared analysis were performed to determine variable dependent relationships and equality of proportions. The most common destinations reported were “just riding around for fun”, home, and dining/shopping. The two most common modes of transportation that would have been used if e-scooters were not available were walking (43.5%) and using a personal vehicle (28.5%). Riding behavior was equally mixed between on the street, on the sidewalk, and equal amounts of both. e-Scooters in Provo are likely having both positive (e.g., air pollution) and negative impacts on health (e.g., injuries, physical inactivity). Future research should further explore patterns of e-scooter use and explicitly examine the linkages between e-scooters and areas of health beyond just injuries.

Healthcare workers are highly regarded for their compassion, dedication, and composure. However, COVID-19 created unprecedented demands that rendered healthcare workers vulnerable to increased burnout, anxiety, and depression. This cross-sectional study assessed the psychosocial impact of COVID-19 on U.S. healthcare frontliners using a 38-item online survey administered by Reaction Data between September and December 2020. The survey included five validated scales to assess self-reported burnout (Maslach Summative Burnout Scale), anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-2), resilience (Brief Resilience Coping Scale), and self-efficacy (New Self-Efficacy Scale-8). We used regression to assess the relationships between demographic variables and the psychosocial scales index scores and found that COVID-19 amplified preexisting burnout (54.8%), anxiety (138.5%), and depression (166.7%), and reduced resilience (5.70%) and self-efficacy (6.5%) among 557 respondents (52.6% male, 47.5% female). High patient volume, extended work hours, staff shortages, and lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and resources fueled burnout, anxiety, and depression. Respondents were anxious about the indefinite duration of the pandemic/uncertain return to normal (54.8%), were anxious of infecting family (48.3%), and felt conflicted about protecting themselves versus fulfilling their duty to patients (44.3%). Respondents derived strength from their capacity to perform well in tough times (74.15%), emotional support from family/friends (67.2%), and time off work (62.8%). Strategies to promote emotional well-being and job satisfaction can focus on multilevel resilience, safety, and social connectedness.

Background: While the social determinants of health (SDOH) have a greater impact on individual health outcomes than the healthcare services a person receives, healthcare providers face barriers to addressing these factors in clinical settings. Previous studies have shown that providers often lack the necessary knowledge and resources to adequately screen for and otherwise assist patients with unmet social needs. This study explores the perceptions and behaviors related to SDOH among healthcare providers in the United States (US). Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from a 22-item online survey using Reaction Data’s research platform of healthcare professionals in the US. Survey items included demographic questions as well as Likert scale questions about healthcare providers’ perceptions and behaviors related to SDOH. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and further analyses were conducted using t-tests and analysis of variance. Results: A total of 563 respondents completed the survey, with the majority being male (72.6%), White (81%), and located in urban areas (82.2%). In terms of perceptions, most providers agreed or strongly agreed that SDOH affect the health outcomes of all patients (68.5%), while only 24.1% agreed or strongly agreed that their healthcare setting was set up to address SDOH. In terms of behavior, fewer than half currently screened for SDOH (48.6%) or addressed (42.7%) SDOH in other ways. Most providers (55.7%) wanted additional resources to focus on SDOH. Statistical analyses showed significant differences by gender, with females being more likely than males to prioritize SDOH, and by specialty, with psychiatrists, pediatricians, and family/general medicine practitioners being more likely to prioritize SDOH. Conclusion: Most healthcare providers understand the connection between unmet social needs and their patients’ health, but they also feel limited in their ability to address these issues. Ongoing efforts to improve medical education and shift the healthcare system to allow for payment and delivery of more holistic care that considers SDOH will likely provide new opportunities for healthcare providers. In addition to what they can do at the institutional and patient levels, providers have the potential to advocate for policy and system changes at the societal level that can better address the root causes of social issues.

Background: Systems thinking is a conceptual approach that can assist stakeholders in understanding complexity and making progress on persistent public health challenges. Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), a complex global health problem, are responsible for a large disease burden among impoverished populations around the world. This aim of this study was to better discern the many complexities of the global NTD system in order to identify and act on leverage points to catalyse progress towards ending NTDs. Methods: Existing frameworks for systems change were adapted to form the conceptual framework for the study. Using a semi-structured interview guide, key informant interviews were conducted with NTD stakeholders at the global level and at the country level in Nigeria. The interview data were coded and analysed to create causal loop diagrams that resulted in a qualitative model of the global NTD system. Results: The complete qualitative model is discussed and presented visually as six separate sub-components that highlight key forces and feedback loops within the global NTD system. Conclusions: We identified five leverage points for NTD system change, namely (1) clarify the potential for and assess realistic progress towards NTD elimination, (2) increase support for interventions besides drug delivery, (3) reduce dependency on international donors, (4) create a less insular culture within the global NTD community, and (5) systemically address the issue of health worker incentives. The specific findings for NTDs raise a number of uncomfortable questions that have not been addressed, at least in part, because it is easier to continue focusing on ‘quick win’ solutions. The study provides a model of a systems thinking approach that can be applied to other complex global health and development challenges in order to understand complexity and identify leverage points for system change.