No abstract

No abstract

Background “Conversion therapy” practices (CTP) are organized and sustained efforts to avoid the adoption of non-heterosexual sexual orientations and/or of gender identities not assigned at birth. Few data are available to inform the contemporary prevalence of CTP. The aim of this study is to quantify the prevalence of CTP among Canadian sexual and gender minority men, including details regarding the setting, age of initiation, and duration of CTP exposure. Methods Sexual and gender minority men, including transmen and non-binary individuals, aged ≥ 15, living in Canada were recruited via social media and networking applications and websites, November 2019—February 2020. Participants provided demographic data and detailed information about their experiences with CTP. Results 21% of respondents (N = 9,214) indicated that they or any person with authority (e.g., parent, caregiver) ever tried to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, and 10% had experienced CTP. CTP experience was highest among non-binary (20%) and transgender respondents (19%), those aged 15–19 years (13%), immigrants (15%), and racial/ethnic minorities (11–22%, with variability by identity). Among the n = 910 participants who experienced CTP, most experienced CTP in religious/faith-based settings (67%) or licensed healthcare provider offices (20%). 72% of those who experienced CTP first attended before the age of 20 years, 24% attended for one year or longer, and 31% attended more than five sessions. Interpretation CTP remains prevalent in Canada and is most prevalent among younger cohorts, transgender people, immigrants, and racial/ethnic minorities. Legislation, policy, and education are needed that target both religious and healthcare settings.

Background The recent proliferation and application of digital technologies in public health has spurred interest in digital public health. However, as yet, there appears to be a lack of conceptual clarity and consensus on its definition. Objective In this scoping review, we seek to assess formal and informal definitions of digital public health in the literature and to understand how these definitions have been conceptualized in relation to digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation. Methods We conducted a scoping literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and 14 government and intergovernmental agency websites encompassing 6 geographic regions. Among a total of 409 full articles identified, we reviewed 11 publications that either formally defined digital public health or informally described the integration of digital technologies into public health in relation to digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation, and we conducted a thematic analysis of the identified definitions. Results Two explicit definitions of digital public health were identified, each with divergent meanings. The first definition suggested digital public health was a reimagination of public health using new ways of working, blending established public health wisdom with new digital concepts and tools. The second definition highlighted digital public health as an asset to achieve existing public health goals. In relation to public health, digitization was used to refer to the technical process of converting analog records to digital data, digitalization referred to the integration of digital technologies into public health operations, and digital transformation was used to describe a cultural shift that pervasively integrates digital technologies and reorganizes services on the basis of the health needs of the public. Conclusions The definition of digital public health remains contested in the literature. Public health researchers and practitioners need to clarify these conceptual definitions to harness opportunities to integrate digital technologies into public health in a way that maximizes their potential to improve public health outcomes. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/preprints.27686

ObjectivesWe assessed COVID-19 pandemic impacts on accessing needed sexual health services, and acceptability of alternative service delivery models, among sexual health service clients in British Columbia (BC), Canada.MethodsWe administered an online survey on 21 July–4 August 2020 to clients using a provincial STI clinic or internet-based testing service, GetCheckedOnline, in the year prior to March 2020. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with having unmet sexual health needs (ie, not accessing needed services) during March–July 2020 and the likelihood of using various alternative service models, if available.ResultsOf 1198 survey respondents, 706 (59%) reported needing any sexual health service since March 2020; of these 706, 365 (52%) did not access needed services and 458 (66%) had avoided or delayed accessing services. GetCheckedOnline users (univariate OR (uOR)=0.62; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.88) or clients with more urgent needs (eg, treatment for new STI, uOR 0.40 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.7)) had lower odds of unmet sexual health needs. The most common factors reported for avoiding or delaying access were public messaging against seeking non-urgent healthcare (234/662, 35%), concern about getting COVID-19 while at (214/662, 32%) or travelling to (147/662, 22%) a clinic or lab and closure of usual place of accessing services (178/662, 27%). All factors were positively associated with having unmet sexual health needs, with public messaging showing the strongest effect (adjusted OR=4.27 (95% CI 2.88 to 6.42)). Likelihood of using alternative sexual health service models was high overall, with the most appealing options being home self-collection kits (634/706, 90%), receiving test kits or antibiotics at home (592/700, 85%) and express testing (565/706, 80%).ConclusionsOf BC sexual health service clients needing services during March–July 2020, many had unmet needs. Offering alternative service delivery methods may help to improve access during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated both the positive and negative use, usefulness, and impact of digital technologies in public health. Digitalization can help advance and sustain the core functions of public health, including health promotion and prevention, epidemiological surveillance, and response to emergent health issues. Digital technologies are thus—in some areas of public discourse—presented as being both necessary and inevitable requirements to address routine and emergency public health issues. However, the circumstances, ways, and extent to which they apply remain a subject of critical reflection and empirical investigation. In this commentary, we argue that we must think through the use of digital technologies in public health and that their usefulness must be assessed in relation to their short- and long-term ethical, health equity, and social justice implications. Neither a sense of digital technological optimism and determinism nor the demands of addressing pressing public health issues should override critical assessment before development and implementation. The urgency of addressing public health emergencies such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic requires prompt and effective action, including action facilitated by digital technologies. Nevertheless, a sense of urgency cannot be an excuse or a substitute for a critical assessment of the tools employed.

No abstract