This study seeks to examine the effect of the characteristics of park users, park characteristics, and the neighborhood environment on park visits and the resultant perceived health status of residents living in Alabama, US. One hundred and eighty-nine participants, representing residents from 49 counties in Alabama, were recruited via a random-digit dial method to complete a telephone survey related to park visits. Data collection spanned 11 months. Results from the path analysis indicated a few significant direct effects: park location and body mass index (BMI) were the only two factors significantly associated with park visits, with race being marginally significant; and work status was significantly associated with perceived health. Our findings suggest park proximity, and high BMI are related to park visits and work status is related to perceived health among Alabamians. It is recommended that more neighborhood parks are needed for promoting Alabamians to visit them more frequently.

BACKGROUND:Reducing caries and improving access to dental care is a public health challenge. Understanding low use of dental care is of critical importance. This study estimated parent- or caregiver-reported prevalence and identified factors associated with children's dental care use, including the association with children's oral health.METHODS:A cross-sectional analysis of children enrolled in Medicaid in Alabama, using data from the 2017 statewide Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Health Plan Survey, was conducted. Associations were measured using adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from logit regression and generalized linear model postestimation of least-squares means.RESULTS:The 6-month prevalence of children receiving dental care was 70.4%. Children aged 0 through 3 years (aPR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.91) had lower prevalence of care than other age groups. The prevalence of low-rated oral health was 9.2%. Low-rated oral health was associated with not receiving dental care (aPR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.87) and parental education of 8th grade or less (aPR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.98). Falsification tests determined that dental care use was not associated with ratings for overall health (aPR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.52) or emotional health (aPR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.33).CONCLUSIONS:It was observed that children not receiving dental care had low-rated oral health; however, as a cross-sectional study, it was not possible to assess the temporality of this relationship.PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS:Oral health care providers should continue to recognize their role in educating parents and providing anticipatory guidance on children's oral health.

Previous research has suggested differences between public and professional understanding of the field of environmental health (EH) and the role of EH services within urban and rural communities. This study investigated EH priority differences between 1) rural and urban residents and 2) residents and EH professionals, and presents quantitative and qualitative methods for establishing locality-specific EH priorities. Residents (N = 588) and EH professionals (N = 63) in Alabama identified EH priorities via a phone or online survey. We categorized rurality of participant residences by rural urban commuting area codes and population density, and tested whether or not EH priorities were different between urban and rural residents. Built environment issues, particularly abandoned houses, and air pollution were high priorities for urban residents whereas, water and sanitation issues, and paper mill-related pollution were high priorities in rural communities. EH professionals ranked food safety and water and sanitation issues as higher priorities than residents did. Results highlight the importance of urbanicity on environmental risk perception and the utility of simple and inexpensive engagement methods for understanding these differences. Differences between residents and EH professionals suggest improving stakeholder participation in local-level EH decision making might lead to greater awareness of EH services, which might in turn improve support and effectiveness of those services.

OBJECTIVE:Historically, double data entry (DDE) has been considered the criterion standard for minimizing data entry errors. However, previous studies considered data entry alternatives through the limited lens of data accuracy. This study supplies information regarding data accuracy, operational efficiency, and cost for DDE and Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) for processing the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems 5.0 survey.METHODS:To assess data accuracy, we compared error rates for DDE and OMR by dividing the number of surveys that were arbitrated by the total number of surveys processed for each method. To assess operational efficiency, we tallied the cost of data entry for DDE and OMR after survey receipt. Costs were calculated on the basis of personnel, depreciation for capital equipment, and costs of noncapital equipment.RESULTS:The cost savings attributed to this method were negated by the operational efficiency of OMR. There was a statistical significance between rates of arbitration between DDE and OMR; however, this statistical significance did not create a practical significance.CONCLUSIONS:The potential benefits of DDE in terms of data accuracy did not outweigh the operational efficiency and thereby financial savings of OMR.