Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) is quickly growing in the United States, despite the unknown health implications and unregulated device contents. Although research is emerging around e-cigs in general, there continues to be a lack of scientific evidence regarding the safety and risks of e-cig use on maternal and fetal health, even though adverse health effects of nicotine on maternal and fetal outcomes are documented. This review summarizes existing perceptions of e-cig use in pregnancy, based on the limited number of publications available, and highlights the necessity of conducting additional research in this field of public health. Authors conducted a literature search of scientific peer-reviewed articles published from January 2006 to October 2016, comprising more than a decade of research. Search keywords include ‘tobacco use’, ‘electronic cigarette(s)’ and ‘pregnancy’. Fifty-seven publications were identified, narrowed to fifteen by screening title/abstract for potential relevance, with seven articles chosen for final inclusion. Of these seven studies, most participants not only believed e-cigs pose risks to maternal and child health but also perceived e-cigs as a safer and potentially healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes, and may assist with smoking cessation. Further research is needed to determine health implications and provide clinical guidelines for e-cig use in pregnancy.

The purpose of this article is to review the current literature describing primary care providers' (PCPs) attitudes related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) people. LGBTQ individuals experience significant health disparities, and these inequities may be better understood via an ecological systems framework. PCPs' actual or perceived discriminatory attitudes can lead to suboptimal treatment or health outcomes for LGBTQ people. A review of the literature from 2005 through January 2017 was completed using the Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PubMed (Medline) databases. The purpose, sample, measure(s), design, findings, strengths, and weaknesses of each study were examined; and findings were synthesized, summarized, and critically appraised. Eight articles were eligible for review. There was significant heterogeneity in the studies' purposes, research questions, LGBTQ population(s) of focus, and findings. Many PCPs' attitudes toward LGBTQ people were positive, but a minority of each studies' participants had negative attitudes toward LGBTQ people. Stigma and health care barriers negatively affect LGBTQ health. Interventions must address LGBTQ health disparities at the individual, mesosytem, exosystem, and macrosystem levels. Research, education, and practice strategies all must be integrated across socioecological levels as components of a population-based approach to eliminate health disparities for LGBTQ persons.

No abstract

BackgroundPharmacists’ role in harm reduction is expanding in many states, yet there are limited data on pharmacists’ willingness to participate in harm reduction activities. This study assessed community pharmacists’ willingness to participate in one harm reduction initiative: syringe/needle exchange.MethodsIn 2015, all Kentucky pharmacists with active licenses were emailed a survey that examined attitudes towards participation in syringe/needle exchange. Response frequencies were calculated for community pharmacist respondents. Ordinal logistic regression estimated the impact of community pharmacist characteristics and attitudes on willingness to provide clean needles/syringes to people who inject drugs and to dispose of used syringes/needles, where both dependent variables were defined as Likert-type questions on a scale of 1 (not at all willing) to 6 (very willing).ResultsOf 4699 practicing Kentucky pharmacists, 1282 pharmacists responded (response rate = 27.3%); the majority (n = 827) were community pharmacists. Community pharmacists were divided on willingness to provide clean needles/syringes, with 39.1% not willing (score 1 or 2 of 6) and 30% very willing (score 5 or 6 of 6). Few were willing to dispose of used needles/syringes, with only 18.7% willing. Community pharmacists who agreed that pharmacists could have significant public health impact by providing access to clean needles expressed 3.56 times more willingness to provide clean needles (95% CI 3.06–4.15), and 2.04 times more willingness to dispose of used needles (95% CI 1.77–2.35). Chain/supermarket pharmacists (n = 485, 58.6% of community pharmacies) were 39% less likely to express willingness to dispose of used needles (95% CI 0.43–0.87) when compared with independent community pharmacists (n = 342, 41.4% of community pharmacies). Independent pharmacists reported different barriers (workflow) than their chain/supermarket pharmacist colleagues (concerns of clientele).ConclusionsKentucky community pharmacists were more willing to provide clean needles than to dispose of used needles. Strategies to mitigate barriers to participation in syringe/needle exchange are warranted.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12954-018-0211-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective Tobacco-free policies are being rapidly adopted nationwide, yet compliance with these policies remains a challenge. This study explored college campus key informants’ experiences with tobacco policies, and their perceived benefits, drawbacks, and outcomes. Participants The sample for this study was 68 key informants representing 16 different California universities with varying tobacco policies (no smoking indoors and within 20 feet of entrances, designated smoking areas, 100% smoke-free, and 100% tobacco-free). Methods Qualitative, descriptive study. Semistructured interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. Results Strategies to improve compliance ranged from a social approach to a heavy focus on punitive enforcement. Key informants from campuses using a social approach alone reported barriers to improving compliance, including a perceived lack of efficacy of the approach. However, these campuses found it challenging to incorporate enforcement through campus police or security. Conclusions College campus decision makers should explore using a combined approach (social approach as well as formal enforcement), with enforcement primarily the responsibility of nonpolice university channels (eg, Student Affairs, employee supervisors).