With the accelerated emergence of telehealth systems being deployed with promises to access unreachable populations in today’s socially distant environment, it is increasingly important to understand the barriers that underprivileged populations face when trying to access healthcare through digital platforms. This research investigates the use of telehealth in social and cultural sub-populations, focusing on how the diverse student population at Arizona State University (ASU) use the recently-launched ASU Telehealth system. Statistical analysis of demographic factors spanning the five categories of social determinants of health were coupled with population studies of the ASU student body to evaluate the reach of services and patient diversity across telehealth and in person health platforms. Results show that insurance, racial and international student identity influence the percentage of students within these demographic categories Also, though the ASU Telehealth patient body reflects ASU’s general student population, the platform did not increase the reach of Health Services and the magnitude of students served. using ASU Telehealth. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is difficult to determine the validity and reliability of these findings. However, the findings and background research point to targeted marketing campaigns, intentional policy decision-making, post-pandemic telehealth resilience, and the continuation of quantitative and qualitative data collection as means to expand the impact and equity of ASU Telehealth into future iterations of the platform. Outputs of this study include web communication materials and qualitative data collection mechanisms for future use and implementation by ASU Health Services.

COVID-19 misinformation covers a wide range of topics such as fatality rate, mask effectiveness, potential cures, vaccine development, and the idea of a "plandemic". The spread of this misinformation happens at a rapid speed with the help of social media and powerful influencers, including major political figures. This thesis is a focused case study on hydroxychloroquine, and builds a timeline of the misinformation surrounding the drug. From poorly conducted studies to the use of false experts, this study reveals how politicized misinformation garners more public attention than the actual science.

There is a lot of variation in health outcomes when it comes to individual states in America. Some states, such as Hawaii, have the life expectancy equivalent to that of developed countries, whereas states like Mississippi have the life expectancy equivalent to that of third world countries. This raised the questions of which states are doing well in health and why, and if their health has to do with their performance in the primary, secondary, tertiary, and/or quaternary prevention levels. The purpose of this research was to investigate if there is a correlation between performance in any of the prevention levels and the overall health status of a state, and if there is, which prevention level would be most beneficial for states to prioritize. The hypothesis of this research was: states that prioritized primary and secondary levels of prevention would have better health than states that prioritized tertiary and quaternary levels of prevention, since basic health measures contribute more to health outcomes than advanced medicine. To investigate this question, indicators were chosen to derive the ranking of each state in health and each of the four prevention levels. Six states were then chosen to represent the high, average, and low health statuses respectively. The six states were ranked for all indicators, and the data was analyzed and compared to determine a potential relationship between the prevention level rankings and the overarching health ranking. It was found that there is a correlation between performance in the primary and secondary prevention levels and a state’s overall health status, whereas there was no such correlation for the tertiary and quaternary levels. A model for health was proposed for states looking to improve their health status, which was to invest in primary prevention, followed by secondary, tertiary, then quaternary prevention and only moving to the next prevention level once the previous level reached a satisfactory threshold.