Announcements

Name: Prof. Dr. Kimberly Mitchell
Affiliations: Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
Interests: adolescent health; adolescent sexual behavior; at risk/high risk populations (health); child abuse/neglect; child/maternal health; cyberbullying; firearms/guns; hate/hate crime/hate speech; opiates/opioids; resilience; suicide; trauma; violence prevention

Name: Prof. Dr. Victoria Banyard
Affiliations: New Brunswick School of Social Work, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Interests: interpersonal violence; sexual violence; dating violence; adolescence

“The Contribution of Social and Structural Determinants of Health Deficits to Mental and Behavioral Health Among a Diverse Group of Young People”
by Kimberly J. Mitchell, Victoria Banyard and Deirdre Colburn
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(7), 1013; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22071013
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/7/1013

The following is a short interview with Prof. Dr. Kimberly Mitchell and Prof. Dr. Victoria Banyard:

1. Congratulations on your recent publication. Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research focus?

Kimberly Mitchell: Sure. My name is Kimberly Mitchell. I’m a research professor at the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, and I’ve been working in this field for about 30 years. I’ve done work, more broadly, with child victimization and adversity, and more recently, I’ve started moving towards suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Victoria Banyard: And I’m Vicki Banyard. I’m a distinguished professor in the School of Social Work and at the Center for Research on ending violence at Rutgers New Brunswick in New Jersey. I’ve been in the field, similar to Kim, for about 30 years, and have been working with her for a number of years. My research is very centered on violence prevention and particularly studying resilience-based strategies, which include understanding bystander intervention and mobilization across a number of different types of violence, and looking at bystander intervention as well as looking at strengths and risk factors related to mental health.

2. Your recent joint study highlights the social and structural determinants affecting young people’s mental health. What would you say are the most overlooked “invisible” determinants in this field, and how do you think we can make them more visible?

Kimberly Mitchell: You know, we know a lot about individual-level risk, and I think we know less about the larger community and societal-level factors that influence and interact with that risk. And that was one of our motivations for working on this paper, in particular, in the context of different health risk behaviours that are really critical to adolescents and young adults right now.

Victoria Banyard: As Kim said, we tend to focus very much on aspects of the individual. We see a lot of analysis of demographic groupings without really unpacking what that means. And I think measuring the social determinants of health in a more fine-grained way helps us to unpack what some of the Community social structural kinds of factors are impacting mental health. And I think we need to study that much more. And I think with this paper, we started that by particularly looking at risk factors. I think in the future, we need to do a lot more to also measure strength as not just the inverse of risk or lack of risk, but strengths in and of themselves. And that’s something for the future.

Kimberly Mitchell: I think it’s also important to add that there is a growing body of literature looking at social and structural determinants of health. A lot of them utilize external kinds of secondary county-level or state-level constructs, which are super important. And what we did in this study is we really looked around to see if there was a way we could ask these questions directly of youth, and we had a hard time finding them. Typically, they’re asked in clinical settings of adults or they’re asked of parents about their children. So, we took those types of screening tools and we adapted them in such a way that would be meaningful to youth. And then we pilot tested them with youth. So it’s also that this paper is exciting to us because it’s the first time we’ve really put some of that stuff out there and shown that kids can answer these questions and how important this is to look at!

Victoria Banyard: I would just add one thing on to that, that the other piece of what I think is novel and exciting to us about this paper is using the latent class analysis to not only, as Kim said, measure a whole variety of social determinants of health, but really trying to see how they go together in different profiles and I think that’s been really interesting. You know, sometimes people may just measure one of the social determinants of health and look at, say, the impact of poverty or income, right? Or they might investigate a variety of them, but what we were also really trying to do was look at: how do these things group together into different profiles of experiences that young people may have, and how we can understand how that affects their mental health?

3. With the development of technology, the impact factors like social media on the mental health of teenagers has become a very important topic. So how would you suggest we equip young people to navigate online risks like cyberbullying while still maximizing digital opportunities? How do you think we could use digital tools to bridge, rather than replace, the human-centered care in the field of mental health?

Kimberly Mitchell: Yeah, I feel like so much research on technology and kids has been negative, and there are certainly risks out there. But we know that there are a lot of great benefits to kids, too. You know, there are whole populations of kids that are otherwise hard to reach, but they’re online. Reaching out to them this way is a way to have their voices heard and their experiences shared. So I think, more and more, there are prevention programs, there are data methodologies where it’s all moved online because that’s where kids are.

4. What advice would you give to early career researchers aiming to make an impact in adolescent health?

Victoria Banyard: I would say study strengths and study context. Don’t just focus on the individual and what attitudes and things may be going on inside their heads. That’s important to understand. But I think we need to keep understanding and bridging disciplines to really look at both what’s going on inside the individual and what is happening around them. And as I said before, to measure strengths in their own right rather than just the inverse of risk. So, I think that’s an important future direction.

5. Our last question is what motivated you to choose the IJERPH journal for your submission, and how did you find the submission process?

Kimberly Mitchell: We’ve published there before. I think Vicki was actually on the Editorial Board for a while. So, we’ve heard good things about it. The journal has published a lot of great information in diverse areas; going back to what Vicki was speaking about, areas that cross disciplines. And I feel like the journal does a good job with that. And in terms of the whole submission process, I thought it was pretty straightforward. I thought the Editors were very responsive. I appreciated having the template to work from; that was really helpful because I think it reduces a lot of the back and forth once it’s accepted.

Victoria Banyard: Yeah, I thought so. As Kim said, you know, we published with you all before, I was an Editorial Board Member for a bit, and I think the turnaround time is also pretty amazing. I mean, we did get very helpful comments from reviewers, but also, just the timeframe is really quite quick compared to other places.

Kimberly Mitchell: Yeah. I also appreciate that there are a lot of Special Issues. I think that draws a lot of people in.

We sincerely thank Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Banyard for sharing their invaluable insights on adolescent mental health, social determinants, and innovative research approaches. Their groundbreaking work in developing youth-centered assessment tools and examining contextual factors provides crucial direction for the field. We wish them continued success in their important contributions to violence prevention and child wellbeing research.

Name: Dr. Laura Campo-Tena
Affiliations: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UK
Research interests: violence prevention, abuse of older people, violence against women

“Assessing Neighborhood Characteristics and Their Association with Prenatal Maternal Stress, Depressive Symptoms, and Well-Being in Eight Culturally Diverse Cities: A Cross-Sectional Study”
by Laura Campo-Tena, Gabriela Diana Roman, Aja Louise Murray, Bao Yen Luong-Thanh, Marguerite Marlow, Yasmeen Anwer, Awurabena Dadzie, Sarah Foley, Sandra Stuart Hernandez, Carene Lindsay et al.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(3), 456; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22030456
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/3/456

The following is a short interview with Dr. Laura Campo-Tena:

1. Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research focus?
I currently work as a violence prevention consultant for the World Health Organization, focusing on the abuse of older people and violence against women. Since 2020, I’ve collaborated with the WHO on several initiatives, including the Global Report on Ageism and, more recently, a global initiative aimed at accelerating the development of effective interventions to prevent and respond to the abuse of older people.
Alongside this, I am currently supporting a systematic review and meta-analysis on the global prevalence of violence against women with disabilities. Previously, I coordinated the Evidence for Better Lives Study (EBLS, https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/vrcresearch/EBLS), a birth-cohort study led by the University of Cambridge and conducted in collaboration with 13 universities across eight sites in low- and middle-income countries. The goal of the EBLS was to examine how exposure to violence and other adversities affects early childhood development and to contribute to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals related to violence prevention.

2. What were the main challenges or breakthroughs in conducting this research?
A major challenge we faced was the lack of culturally validated instruments to measure neighborhood characteristics, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Most existing tools had been developed in high-income settings, which made it difficult to assess key constructs—like neighborhood cohesion or social disorder—in more diverse contexts. This gap was one of the main motivations behind our study. We aimed to evaluate the conceptual and measurement equivalence of these scales across multiple international sites. Another key difficulty was the scarcity of prior research on how neighborhood factors affect maternal mental health during the perinatal period, especially in lower-resource settings. This lack of existing evidence made it challenging to build on previous knowledge but underscored the need for studies like ours.

3. What motivates your work in this field?
The motivation behind this research comes from an interest in understanding how the social and physical environments in which women live during pregnancy affect their health and well-being. There is significant research on individual-level factors like income and education, but far less attention has been paid to how the broader ecological context, such as neighborhood environment, influences well-being, particularly during pregnancy. This stage is incredibly sensitive, not only concerning the mother’s well-being but also for fetal development and early childhood outcomes: maternal stress and poor mental health are linked to a range of negative outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight, and long-term developmental challenges. The perinatal period also presents a unique opportunity for intervention, as women may be more receptive to support, having regular contact with healthcare providers. We were particularly motivated to understand these dynamics in underrepresented contexts and to contribute evidence on tools with demonstrated cross-cultural applicability, which can help inform both public health interventions and urban planning.

4. How do you assess current trends in your research field, and what advice would you offer to PhD students or early career researchers?
There is a growing recognition of the need for multidisciplinary approaches, combining insights from public health, urban planning, and social sciences, to better understand how neighborhood environments are associated with health and well-being. I would strongly encourage early career researchers to adopt this integrative mindset. Longitudinal research, like the EBLS, also offers deeper insight into relationships that may suggest causality and should be prioritized when possible. In our study, we examined a handful of neighborhood characteristics, but many others (such as access to healthcare, green spaces, and community resources) may also play an important role. Future research should explore these additional factors to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how environments shape maternal and child health outcomes.

5. Why did you choose to publish your research with IJERPH, and how was your experience with the journal?
We selected IJERPH because its scope aligned closely with our research goals and because it is open access. Accessibility was a key consideration. We wanted this work to be available not just to academics, but also to NGOs, practitioners, students, and anyone engaged in public health or violence prevention. The publishing experience was very smooth. The peer review process was efficient, and the comments we received helped improve the quality of our work. Communication with the editorial team was also excellent. Overall, we were very satisfied with the process.

We are pleased to announce that the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH, ISSN: 1660-4601) ranked first in the latest Google Scholar Metrics under the “Public Health” subcategory, with an h5-index of 258 and an h5-median of 372. For further details on our ranking, please visit the Google Scholar Metrics webpage here.

We would like to thank all the editors, reviewers, authors, and readers of IJERPH for their contributions and support. Please feel free to contact us via ijerph@mdpi.com if you have any questions or suggestions for IJERPH.

Supplementary explanations:

• Scholar Metrics—Scholar Metrics provide an easy way for authors to quickly gauge the visibility and influence of recent articles in scholarly publications.
• h5-index—The h5-index is the h-index for articles published in the last 5 complete years. It is the largest number h such that h articles published in 2020–2024 have at least h citations each.
• h5-median—The h5-median for a publication is the median number of citations for the articles that make up its h5-index.

IJERPH Editorial Office

We are pleased to announce that MDPI will be attending the 12th Indoor Environment and Health Conference (IEHB 2025), which will be held in Dalian, China, from 8 to 10 August 2025. 

This conference is organized by the Indoor Environment and Health Branch of the Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences and is hosted by Dalian University of Technology, Tianjin University, and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Centered on the theme “Beautiful Environment, Connectivity and Integration, Smart and Healthy Living”, the conference will delve into critical topics such as indoor environments and health, pollutants and their microbial transmission mechanisms and control strategies, healthy and smart cities, green intelligent buildings, carbon peaking and neutrality, energy conservation, and indoor air chemistry and reaction mechanisms. This event aims to foster interdisciplinary collaboration, create a bridge between academia and industry, and serve as a platform to facilitate in-depth discussions, strengthen partnerships, and share success among participants. 

The following MDPI journals will be represented:

• Buildings;
• Air;
• Architecture;
• Clean Technol.;
• Climate;
• Designs;
• Environments;
• IJERPH;
• Pollutants;
• Sustainability;
• Toxics;
• Waste. 

If you plan on attending this conference, feel free to stop by our booth. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person to answer any questions you may have. For more information about the conference, please click the following link: https://iehb2025.aconf.cn/index.html.

Name: Dr. Ricardo Noriega Espinoza
Affiliations: ¹ Department of Public Health, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA;
² Paso del Norte Health Information Exchange, El Paso, TX 79912, USA
Interests: prediabetes; type 2 diabetes; comorbidity; prevalence; Hispanic 

“Comorbidity Prevalence in Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Predominantly Hispanic U.S.–Mexico Border Population”
by Ricardo X. Noriega, Juan J. Nañez, Emily F. Hartmann, John D. Beard, Chantel D. Sloan-Aagard and Evan L. Thacker
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(5), 673; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22050673
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/5/673 

The following is an interview with Dr. Ricardo Noriega Espinoza: 

1. Congratulations on your recent publication! Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research focus?
   I'm doctor Ricardo Noriega. I'm originally from Ecuador where I was trained as a physician and I later earned a Master of Public Health with an emphasis in epidemiology in the US from Brigham Young University. Right now, I'm working as an adjunct professor at this university, BYU, and I also work as an epidemiologist and research consultant at PHIX, a health information exchange non-profit organization based in El Paso. Most of my work involves analyzing health data to identify trends and translating clinical information into actionable public health insights. Lately, I've been especially focused on understanding comorbidities in people with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. That's the main point of my research, and how early detection combined with localized data can help to drive more effective prevention. So, this current research looks at over 100,000 adult medical records in El Paso, which is a predominantly Hispanic bordered community. We found that people with prediabetes had significantly fewer comorbidities compared to those with type 2 diabetes. That’s really reinforced how important early intervention is, especially in underserved populations where diabetes risk is high.
2. Your work focuses on chronic diseases in diverse populations. What’s one surprising insight about community health behaviors that changed how you approach prevention strategies?
   I think one thing that really surprised me was just how low awareness of prediabetes is even among people who regularly visit their healthcare provider. So, for example, the CDC estimates that over 97,000,000 US adults have prediabetes, but more than 80% of them don't know it. In our own study we saw the same patterns, like many patients have a diagnosis of prediabetes in their medical records, but they didn't seem to be engaged in any prevention effort. There’s a gap between having a diagnosis and actually doing something about it. It really shifted how I think about health behavior regarding prediabetes. I think it's not just about motivation. It is also about how risk is communicated. I think that all people involved in providing healthcare should ask, are we making the message culturally relevant? Is it clear, practical or truly connected with the patient in a way that feels personal or meaningful? Because of that, I have started focusing more on a systemic-level solution. An example is improving how medical records follow up on prediabetes and, for example, partnership with local organizations to deliver lifestyle programs that really resonate with the people we are trying to help. And while our results that people with diabetes have more comorbidity than those with prediabetes may not be surprising, there actually hasn't been much larger-scale research quantifying that difference, especially using real world data from Hispanic communities. So, in that sense, our study helped to fill a gap. It provides us a way to track population health over time, compare between communities, and evaluate whether prevention strategies are really working where they are needed most. 
3. Chronic diseases (like diabetes, heart disease) affect millions. How can spatial or environmental data reveal hidden patterns in these diseases that traditional methods might miss?
   That’s a great question. Even though we did not publish any results about these using these methods, we have been working on this. We consider that spatial and environmental data can really open eyes to patterns that we might have otherwise missed, especially when we are just looking at broad averages. For example, in El Paso we have observed that areas with limited green spaces, poor air quality, and higher heat exposure tend to have higher rates of cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, so these hot spots are invisible when the data are aggregated by city. But when we map clinic visits or health outcomes against environmental metrics, this becomes clear. As part of our effort to study diabetes at PHIX, we mapped the prevalence of diabetes by ZIP code and we found that areas closer to the US–Mexico border consistently show higher prevalence. This geographic gradient highlights how social and structural factors like access to care, poverty, housing, and transportation interact with the health outcomes. To better understand these disparities right now we are refining our analysis using the census track and block level. That adds a level of detail that we believe will give us an even clearer picture of local disparities and help guide more targeted intervention in and also resource allocation strategies in El Paso. We have also developed dashboards that layer health outcomes with environmental data such as heat exposure and air quality. These two factors have been especially helpful for our public health partners, enabling them to identify high-risk neighborhoods and take focused actions. Some of them are identifying cooling centers, for example, expanding shaded green areas, or coordinating local outreach efforts. This kind of place-based analysis helps us to shift from reacting to health problems to preventing them via the community level where the impact is most direct. 
4. When combining environmental data (e.g., air quality, green spaces) with health outcomes, what’s a common oversight people make—and how do you address it?
   I think that probably a common oversight is treating environmental exposure as static, which means averaging data over large areas or long time periods without accounting for individual variability or cumulative exposure. We cannot assume that everyone in a given city experiences the environment in the same way, right? People don't live in averages; they live in specific microenvironments that can vary drastically by the hour, the block, or even where they work versus where they live. So, to address this, we have advocated for using fine-grained, time-linked data and when possible incorporated mobility patterns. For example, aligning daily air quality data with emergency department visits helps us to detect acute environmental triggers. Rather than identify disease patterns, the idea is to understand exposure in a way that reflects life experience. The strategies will be designed not just in a data-driven way, but also in a way that is relevant and practical for the communities we serve. Working closely with environmental health experts and utilizing data such as syndromic surveillance systems and GIS could enable El Paso and other communities to respond with greater precision and impact.
5. What appealed to you about the journal that made you want to submit your paper? How was your experience submitting to IJERPH?
   Well, we were drawn to this journal because of the interdisciplinary approach and global reach.
   One of my co-authors has published with the journal before and he spoke highly of the experience. So, when we began looking for the right place to submit our work, he suggested it as a strong fit and after reviewing the journal’s scope, we agreed with that. The study was well aligned with the “Infectious Diseases, Chronic Diseases, and Disease Prevention” Section, particularly because it addresses the core priorities that are understanding the burden of chronic diseases and also identifying the opportunities for early intervention. Although our main focus was on chronic diseases, we also included data on infection and respiratory conditions, including COVID-19, and its prevalence differences between individuals with prediabetes and those with type 2 diabetes, which made the study especially relevant to the scope of this Section.
   And as for the submission and peer review process, we believe that it was efficient and highly constructive. The reviewers provided thoughtful feedback that helped us to improve our arguments and clarify the results. Something that I also really appreciate is the journal’s open access model which ensures that the findings are available for clinicians, researchers and community leaders. So, thank you so much for that.

Conference: 17th China Nutrition Science Congress
Date: 21–23 September 2025
Location: Beijing, China

MDPI will be attending the 17th China Nutrition Science Congress as an exhibitor. The event will take place in Beijing, China, from 21 to 23 September 2025.

The theme of the conference is “Nutritional Innovation—Promoting High Quality Development of National Health”. The conference will invite renowned experts from both home and abroad to give keynote speeches and special reports. It will also organize various academic activities such as paper exchanges, academic presentations, and seminars, with rich and diverse content. Scientists and technicians in the fields of nutrition, health, food, and agriculture, as well as representatives from the industry, are welcome to actively participate and exchange ideas.

The scientific program offers keynote speeches, Symposia, and Forums related to the following fields of nutrition:

• Nutrition innovation and high-quality development—This includes food, sustainable food development and nutrition actions; future nutrition directions and technologies, artificial intelligence and nutrition services, etc.;
• Basic nutrition research—Covering new methods and technologies; nutrition and immunity; nutrition and intestinal microecology; diet and inflammatory diseases; precision nutrition, etc.;
• Food and nutrition—Covering areas such as new food components and analytical technologies; phytochemicals; dietary culture and behavior; food and nutrition big data, etc.;
• Dietary therapy—In the fields of health management, chronic disease prevention and treatment, etc.;
• Lifelong nutrition for the population—nutrition during pregnancy; nutrition during lactation; nutrition in early life; nutrition for children and adolescents; nutrition for the elderly; sports nutrition; vegetarian nutrition, etc.;
• Clinical nutrition—Specialized food products, medical diets, etc.;
• Public nutrition and health—Covering areas such as nutrition policies and regulations, standards; community nutrition; nutritional epidemiology; nutrition and health management, etc.

The following MDPI journals will be represented:

• Nutrients;
• IJERPH;
• Obesities;
• Antioxidants;
• Hygiene;
• Nutraceuticals;
• Healthcare.

If you are attending this conference, please feel free to start an online conversation with us. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person at booth #78 and answering any questions you may have. For more information about the conference, please visit the following website: http://www.cnsc2025.cn/.

World Breastfeeding Week 2025, celebrated in the first week of August, calls on us to recognise breastfeeding as a powerful foundation for lifelong health, development, and equity. This year’s theme shines a spotlight on the critical gaps in the support systems that women and babies need throughout their breastfeeding journey. From access to timely information and quality care, to creating supportive environments at home, in healthcare settings, and in the workplace—women deserve to be empowered to breastfeed for as long as they choose.

Aligned with WHO’s “Healthy Beginnings, Hopeful Futures” initiative, breastfeeding is more than a personal choice, it is also a public health imperative. It delivers hope not only for individual children, but for communities and nations: reducing healthcare costs, supporting cognitive development, strengthening economies, and giving every child a healthier start in life.

In recognition of this global observance, we invite you to explore a curated collection of articles and Special Issues from selected MDPI journals. These open access resources offer critical insights into the barriers to breastfeeding initiation and continuation, including the roles of sociodemographic inequities, maternal physical and mental health, and long-term child health outcomes. These insights aim to support researchers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers in building systems that uplift and protect the breastfeeding journey, from the first latch to the final feed.

Together, through science, education, and empathy, we can foster a more inclusive world where mothers and babies thrive.

“Breastfeeding and Intersectionality in the Deep South: Race, Class, Gender and Community Context in Coastal Mississippi”
by John P. Bartkowski, Katherine Klee, Xiaohe Xu, Jacinda B. Roach and Shakeizia (Kezi) Jones
Women 2025, 5(2), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/women5020021

“Influence of Perceived Maternal Self-Efficacy on Exclusive Breastfeeding Initiation and Consolidation: A Systematic Review”
by Steven Saavedra Sanchez, Isabel Rodríguez-Gallego, Fatima Leon-Larios, Elena Andina-Diaz, Rosa Perez-Contreras and Juan D. Gonzalez-Sanz
Healthcare 2024, 12(23), 2347; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12232347

“Subcutaneous Semaglutide during Breastfeeding: Infant Safety Regarding Drug Transfer into Human Milk”
by Hanin Diab, Taylor Fuquay, Palika Datta, Ulrich Bickel, Jonathan Thompson and Kaytlin Krutsch
Nutrients 2024, 16(17), 2886; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16172886

“Can Breastfeeding Prevent Long-Term Overweight and Obesity in Children? A Population-Based Cohort Study”
by Carolina Roldão, Rita Lopes, Joana Matos Silva, Natália Neves, Joana Costa Gomes, Cristina Gavina and Tiago Taveira-Gomes
Nutrients 2024, 16(16), 2728; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16162728

“Association of Breastfeeding and Early Childhood Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”
by Sheetal Kiran Shrestha, Amit Arora, Narendar Manohar, Kanchana Ekanayake and Jann Foster
Nutrients 2024, 16(9), 1355; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16091355

“Australian Women’s Experiences of Establishing Breastfeeding after Caesarean Birth”
by Sharon L. Perrella, Sarah G. Abelha, Philip Vlaskovsky, Jacki L. McEachran, Stuart A. Prosser and Donna T. Geddes
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(3), 296; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030296

“Factors Influencing Duration of Breastfeeding: Insights from a Prospective Study of Maternal Health Literacy and Obstetric Practices”
by Rafael Vila-Candel, Francisco Javier Soriano-Vidal, Cristina Franco-Antonio, Oscar Garcia-Algar, Vicente Andreu-Fernandez and Desirée Mena-Tudela
Nutrients 2024, 16(5), 690; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16050690                                          

“The Impact of Mode of Delivery and Postpartum Conditions on Breastfeeding: A Cross-Sectional Study”
by Anita Hulman, Annamária Pakai, Tímea Csákvári, Viola Keczeli and Katalin Varga
Healthcare 2024, 12(2), 248; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020248

“Examining the Role of Interpersonal Violence in Racial Disparities in Breastfeeding in North Dakota (ND PRAMS 2017–2019)”
by MichaeLynn Kanichy (Makah), Lexie Schmidt, RaeAnn Anderson, Grace Njau, Amy Stiffarm (Aaniiih), Matthew Schmidt, Anastasia Stepanov and Andrew Williams
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(8), 5445; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20085445

“Knowledge, Attitudes, Behavior, Acceptance, and Hesitancy in Relation to the COVID-19 Vaccine among Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women: A Systematic Review Protocol”
by Vincenza Gianfredi, Alessandro Berti, Marilena D’Amico, Viola De Lorenzo and Silvana Castaldi
Women 2023, 3(1), 73-81; https://doi.org/10.3390/women3010006

Name: Dr. Liam O’Neill
Affiliations: Department of Rehabilitation and Health Services, College of Health and Public Service, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA
Interests: mental health and law enforcement encounters; health disparities in vulnerable populations

“The Role of Mental Health, Recent Trauma, and Suicidal Behavior in Officer-Involved Shootings: A Public Health Perspective”
by Liam O’Neill
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(6), 945; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22060945
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/6/945

The following is a short interview with Dr. Liam O’Neill:

1. Congratulations on your recent publication. Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research focus?

My name is Liam O’Neill, and I am an associate professor at the University of North Texas. When the pandemic arrived in 2020, I began working on COVID-19 and its impact on children. I recently published a paper on the impact of COVID-19 on the homeless population.  However, now there is not as much emphasis on COVID-19, and the number of publications in this area has declined rapidly. And so, I began to research the urgent problem of gun violence in the US from a public health perspective. A huge obstacle for researchers is the lack of quality data about gun violence, especially the type of “big data” that is needed for this research. That is a theme of the current paper, including how hospital databases can fill this gap.  Gun violence is a huge topic, so I narrowed it down to focus on officer-involved shootings. This is my focus right now, and there are many interesting follow-up questions from this paper, such as the alarming increase in the use of the drug “crystal meth” and officer-involved shootings. This data set is unique, as it contains detailed data on both mental health and substance use. So, I approached this problem from a public health perspective, as opposed to law enforcement or psychology.

2. Your recent studies tackle complex public health emergencies. What role do you see for real-time big data analytics in predicting and mitigating future health crises—whether infectious diseases or mental health emergencies?

I am very optimistic about it! I have taught health information systems since the 1990s.  For as long as I can remember, there has been a lot of hype surrounding the use of Electronic Health Records. For the longest time, the hype has outpaced the reality, which has led to a lot of frustration along the way.  With a lot of technology, it takes a long time to develop. Starting around 2012, there was a huge investment in health information technology. Around 2016, we finally made the transition from ICD9 to ICD10.  That was a game-changer, and it has been quite helpful to researchers. So, there has been a lot of improvement on the data side, and the quality of the data has been getting a lot better.  And it is only going to improve.  So it is really on the verge of becoming a disruptive innovation.

However, there are still definitely problems in terms of getting access to the data or certain kinds of data, such as the E-codes that pertain to social determinants. But I think that it is very promising for a whole bunch of things, such as predicting accidents and even the health effects of climate change. With the officer-involved shooting, it is similar to a plane crash because a plane crash is extremely rare. It is not a question of one thing going wrong, but, say, five things going wrong at once.  If four out of five go wrong, you are OK. But if that fifth thing goes wrong, then you have the accident.  In the vast majority of police encounters, there is no violence.  And even if there is violence, normally it is not going to escalate to the point of a shooting. There are also less lethal means of restraint.

As far as real-time data, there is about a one-year lag in data availability, as I am just now getting the data from 20204.

I am very optimistic. The quality and quantity of data have improved significantly over the years, and the pace of change is accelerating. Artificial intelligence is also a huge game-changer.

For years, the bottleneck has not been the data itself, but the shortage of people with the analytical skills to derive meaningful insights from the data. For many years, much of the top talent in data analytics has gone to big tech firms, such as Google or Amazon. Some of my former students went to work for Epic in Wisconsin, and they have performed quite well. More recently, health care has begun to attract some of the top talent in IT. One of my former students is now a Chief Information Officer at a large health care system. There are many interesting problems in health care to work on right now.

3. Did you encounter any significant challenges while you were carrying out this research? And if so, how did you overcome them?

One of the biggest challenges was the amount of data required. I needed almost 20 million hospital records. So that is why I had to use 7.5 years of data in order to get a sufficient sample size.

If I only have two years of data, I have only got about 20 officer-involved shootings. That is just not enough observations, in terms of statistical power.

Also, writing the computer code takes a lot of work. To operationalize the variables requires thousands and thousands of lines of code. And each step must be validated. For each variable, there could be 15 - 20 (ICD10-CM) codes associated with it.   

In terms of methods, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes. You are limited in the methods section because it can be somewhat boring for the reader. The important thing is to include enough detail so that others can replicate your findings. What the reader wants to know is: “What are the findings?” and “Why does it matter?”.

4. Could you share what your vision is for the future of your research and the kind of contributions you aspire to make in your field in the future?

There is a lot of exciting work being done on the boundaries between disciplines. For example, there is much potential to apply the tools of health economics to other areas, such as law enforcement and psychology. However, this approach requires a lot of data. The same basic methodology that has been used to identify the risk factors for COVID-19 in children can be used to identify the risk factors for officer-involved shootings. The methods are quite well-developed. It can also be used to address other questions, such as: What are the key differences between persons who are obsessed with suicide, also called “suicidal ideation”, as compared to those who take the next step and attempt suicide? These are hugely important questions! Moreover, there is an extensive literature in psychology about these issues. Yet there is not much research from the perspective of behavioral economics.

The importance of negative results is often overlooked, especially from a publication perspective. For example, at the onset of the pandemic, childhood asthma was thought to be a risk factor for developing COVID-19. Many parents kept their kids out of school based on these early guidelines. Further research found that children with asthma were not at greater risk for COVID-19. However, this was only clear in hindsight. With regards to officer-involved shootings, it is important to know what NOT to focus on. For example, the risk of an OIS drops significantly after age 60. Whereas dementia may be a huge problem for society, it does not appear to be a significant issue with regard to OIS. So, it is important to focus on those few causes that are associated with the majority of OIS incidents.

Many of these officer-involved shootings could be prevented. The evidence supports that most events were precipitated by a mental health crisis, such as the loss of a family member. If people had access to mental health services and access to medications to manage schizophrenia and addiction, many of these incidents could be prevented. By the time someone goes to Walmart and starts waving a knife around, by then it may be too late. However, it is still possible that crisis intervention teams could de-escalate the situation. What the evidence shows is that, in many cases, the subject is having a psychotic episode.  

5. What motivated you to choose IJERPH for your submission, and how would you characterize your experience during the publication journey?

I have heard that this is a good journal, and I have read articles in this journal before; it has a good reputation, it has a good impact factor, and the fact that it is international is good.  They also do not get many articles about officer-involved shootings, because in most countries, that is not a problem.

The United States is unique in having so many officer-involved shootings. But I also mentioned in the paper that there were also firearm injuries to police officers in the database, because guns shoot in both directions. And so, I tried hard to be objective and unbiased. It is a very political issue. So, I just presented the evidence, based on what the data showed, and let the reader decide.

For example, homeless people accounted for more than three percent of the OIS incidents.  In my view, this is a huge problem for society, and I think we can do much better. Some may disagree, and that is fine. All I can do is bring attention to the problem and shine a light on what is happening.

My experience was quite good in terms of the journal. I thought the reviews were constructive and helpful.  I gave a thorough response to the reviews. I felt that they got it, like, in terms of my vision for the paper.  The publication process was timely, which is always a good thing.  I was also impressed with the proofreading stage they went through, line by line, to identify any potential errors. So, I appreciate that, because I am sure that it is going to end up improving the quality of the paper at the end of the day.

We sincerely appreciate Dr. O’Neill for sharing his valuable research on applying big data analytics to address critical public health challenges. His work provides important insights into data-driven approaches for improving health care outcomes and community safety. The journal wishes him continued success in his important contributions to advancing evidence-based solutions in these vital research areas.

Name: Prof. Dr. Arthur Frank
Affiliations: Department of EOH, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

“Epidemiological Trends in Mesothelioma Mortality in Colombia (1997–2022): A Retrospective National Study”
by Luisa F. Moyano-Ariza, Guillermo Villamizar, Giana Henríquez-Mendoza, Arthur Frank and Gabriel Camero
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(5), 787; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22050787
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/5/787

The following is a brief interview with Prof. Dr. Arthur Frank:

1. Congratulations on your recent publication! Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research focus?
Yes, my name is Arthur Frank. I am a clinical professor and chair emeritus at the Drexel University School of Public Health. But I am also a professor of medicine and a professor of civil, architectural and environmental engineering.
My main focus of research for more than 50 years now has been the health effects of asbestos. I started as a medical student at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, which was actively involved in asbestos-related research. I started there in the first class when the school opened in 1968 and have been engaged in asbestos research ever since, and that is what the publications are all about. I have been an academic physician my whole career.

2. What’s one major challenge in addressing environmental cancer risks that your work helps tackle?
Well, the major challenge from a public health standpoint is that only about 70 countries out of about 200 in the world have banned the use of asbestos. It is a material that nobody needs. There are certainly available substitutes and other materials that can be used. Even here in the United States, we have had no official ban except for certain products, and even now the industry is fighting; they have just gone to court to overturn and put on hold for the moment the most recent ban put in place, which was only for one fibre type. There are six fibre types of asbestos, and only for six conditions of use of that one fibre type was banned, and even that was too much for the industry to put up with.
So, they are fighting to put that ban recently put in place aside; they managed in 1989 to put a major ban aside. Countries in the EU and many mid-level and developing countries have used asbestos in the past, but have now banned it, and we know that the major user of asbestos is now the country of India, where, I believe, last year, they had about 1.4 million tonnes of asbestos. They have replaced China as the world’s No.1 user, and Russia continues to be the No.1 producer, with other major production in Kazakhstan and a few other countries. So, the biggest problem is stopping the use so that people will no longer get preventable diseases.
What we know is that even if we stopped it all over the world today, there would still be disease for at least 50 years forward because of the long latency of disease caused by asbestos. We no longer have any questions about whether it is a toxic material if it is a carcinogenic material. There are still some scientific questions of interest from a scientific point of view, not from a public health point of view; do the different fibres have equal or different abilities to cause disease? There are some cancers that some of us believe do occur, while others are still questioning. And a major issue around the world is the millions and millions of miles of asbestos cement pipes, which release asbestos fibres into drinking water, and many of us believe can cause gastrointestinal, kidney and other cancers potentially.

3. What common misconception about environmental links to health risk would you most like to clarify for the public?
I think the most common misconception is the untrue information. Some are telling people there is no such thing as climate change, that asbestos is not a hazard; it has been called by some people a hoax, which it is not. It was shown to be a disease-causing entity as far back as more than a hundred years ago, long before the country they accused ever got involved with the issue. Cancer has been known for about 80 years in terms of our ability to produce cancer. So, I feel that the biggest problem those of us have in the public health arena is to be honest. Scientifically supported information out there. We see that it is under attack in many ways, literally. Several days ago, the vaccine group for the CDC here in the United States met and decided to ban a material that no one has shown to be harmful, as it is used in vaccines. Fortunately, it only effects less than 5% of the vaccine supply for the flu vaccine here in the United States, but there is so much misinformation and so much unwillingness to admit in the world of environmental science and environmental health that there are real dangers to the planet and they will continually and most acutely affect the poorest people and the poorest nations around the world. In countries like Bangladesh, much of the arable land will be under water Islands, all over the world, we will see populations having to move because they will be underwater and to not recognise that the increasing heat in the planet comes from man-made activities which we need to reverse is the saddest thing that we see now in the field of environmental health.

4. Did you encounter any significant challenges while conducting your research? If so, how did you overcome them?
Well, there are always challenges in doing research. I find it interesting as a scientist (and I have worked at foreign academic institutions.) that there is a certain, and I do not mean this in a real negative sense, but a certain arrogance we have as scientists to ask people or companies or others to give us money because we have ideas and to support research, be it basic research, be it translational research. We ask for funding and for our support to come from not building things necessarily, not making widgets, even as a physician, not doing clinical care, which I have done most of my career, but we have, as researchers, ideas that we want to fund and we have to do proper science to answer certain questions, which then can lead to the betterment of mankind.
The other problem is that there has never been in my career sufficient stable funding that goes on and on. We see funding for research under attack right now, and personally, even about 40 years ago or longer, I was in the midst of a three-year project which, when a new administration came in, because a whole series of projects had been given funding under “special topics” as the headline, decided they did not need anything that was “special” and took away the grant funds in the middle of wherever anybody's grant was. So, I had an educational grant to educate physicians about occupational and environmental health, which, to this day, 40 years later, they still know very little about and get very little training in medical education.
It is the long-term stability and recognition of the importance of funding that, over the long term, saves lives and makes all of our societies better.

5. Could you share your experience of publishing in IJERPH?
It was one of the easier journals to be published in. I have been publishing ever since I was a college student. I published my first paper back in the 1960s, as someone who has above 200 or 250 publications. Now, some journals make it easy, some make it hard. This publication was pretty straightforward. What I found was that in the old days, you would send in a typescript, much easier than what is asked of us now, it would be typeset, and you would get a set of galleys; you could correct those.

We thank Dr. Frank for taking the time and sharing his expertise, and we look forward to seeing his continued efforts in contributing to a safer and healthier future. Wishing him all the best with his research and upcoming publications!