Programs and Communities
The collection collates collections by schools, centers, programs, and research groups.
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Food security
- All Subjects: Guidelines
Investigation of how digitalization of agriculture and agrifood systems affect local and regional food systems
As of May 2022, there have been more than 80 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 across the United States, and over two million cases in Arizona. The pandemic has had a devastating impact on local, national, and global economies. This brief features the findings from data collected from a survey administered to Arizona residents in April of 2021, as well as national statistics, to understand some of the economic consequences of COVID-19 and its impacts on Arizona households.
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has affected employment and food security globally and in the United States. To understand the impacts of COVID-19 on food security in Arizona, a representative survey of Arizona households was launched online from July 1 to August 10, 2020. This brief provides an overview of changes in food security rate, perceived worries and challenges about food security, as well as behavioral changes and strategies adopted since the pandemic. Additional briefs from the Arizona survey covering topics on economic consequences, food access, and participations in food assistance programs during the pandemic are also available.
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a sudden and severe economic downturn. Between February and May 2020, the number of unemployed individuals rose by more than 14 million, resulting in an unprecedented increase in the unemployment rate, which went from 3.8% in February to 14.4% in April. Even though unemployment has declined in recent months, with some individuals returning to work, the rate is still much higher than it was one year ago (7.9% in September 2020 vs. 3.5% in September 2019). Further, as of September 2020, there are 19.4 million persons unable to work due to the pandemic, as well as 6.3 million persons working only part time even though they would prefer to work more.
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to disruptions in the food supply and high rates of unemployment and under-employment, both in Arizona and nationally. These emergencies required food assistance programs to adapt quickly and in unprecedented ways by relaxing eligibility criteria, improvising on delivery modalities, and increasing benefits. To examine food assistance program participation during the pandemic, we collected data from a representative sample of 620 Arizona households. The sample was drawn from across Arizona in July-August 2020 using an online survey. This brief provides the summary for participation in key food assistance programs, namely, the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Program for Women Infants and Children (WIC), School Food Programs, and the emergency food assistance provided through food pantries.
With more than 19 million confirmed COVID-19 cases across the United States1 and over 500,000 in Arizona as of December 2020, the ongoing pandemic has had devastating impacts on local, national, and global economies. Prior to the pandemic (February 2020), based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the unemployment rate in Arizona was 6.5%, compared to 4.9% at the national level.3 Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), the United States has experienced striking increases in the unemployment rate, reaching 13.2% in April. Similarly, in Arizona, the unemployment rate jumped to over 13.5% in April. The unemployment rates have since declined both nationally and in Arizona but remain higher compared to February 2020. In November 2020 (the most recent data available), the national unemployment rate was 6.7%, while in Arizona the rate was 7.8%—the 10th highest unemployment rate among all U.S. states.
Methods: A multifaceted intervention was utilized that included educational sessions for providers, adjustments to the electronic health record (EHR), access to toolkits, and workflow changes. Pediatric patients aged 5-18 years and diagnosed with asthma (N = 173) were evaluated using a pre-post design. Provider adherence to key components of clinical practice guidelines were assessed prior to implementation, and a three and six months post-implementation. Data was analyzed using descriptive statists and the Friedman’s ANOVA by rank.
Results: Provider education, EHR adjustments, provider toolkits, and changes to office workflow improved provider adherence to key aspects of asthma clinical practice guidelines. A significant difference was found between the pre and post implementation groups (p < .01).
Conclusion: Increased adherence to clinical practice guidelines leads to fewer complications and an overall improved quality of life. Continuing provider education is critical to sustained adherence.
Background and Significance: HF affects over 5.1 million people in the United States, costing $31 billion a year; $1.7 billion spent on Medicare readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Guidelines and care coordination prevent expenses related to hospital readmissions and improve quality of life for adults with HF.
Methods: Healthcare providers (HCPs) at a metropolitan hospital participated in an education session reviewing HF treatment and CMD. Thirty participants completed the single five-point Likert scale pre/post surveys evaluating their opinions of knowledge and behaviors toward implementation of guidelines and CMD. Patient outcome data was abstracted measuring pre/post education compliance for ejection fraction, ACE/ARB, beta-blocker, HF education, follow-up appointments, aldosterone antagonist, anticoagulation, hydralazine nitrate, and CMD 30-45 day’s pre/post education. Analyses included descriptive statistics of participants and pre/post surveys using a paired t-test. Percentage of compliance for quality measures was completed on patients from September through December.
Results: Providers post intervention showed improved knowledge and behaviors toward implementation of guidelines and CMD, including reconciliation of medications to statistical significance. However, the demographics showed the majority of participants were non-cardiac specialties. Improved compliance for outcome data of quality measures was insignificant over time. The non-cardiac demographic may have contributed to this result.
Conclusion: The surveys did not correlate with the patient outcome data. Recommendations would include targeting cardiac focused HCPs for future education sessions.