The objectives of this study were to identify factors associated with zoonotic infections in veterinarians, the incidence of physician consultation and treatment and the incidence of diagnostic and treatment errors. Veterinarians in any area of practice were solicited to participate in an online survey through an invitation letter sent to the Oregon Veterinary Medical Association. Proportions of respondents to various factors were analyzed for differences among gender, age, time since graduation and type of practice in which they worked. In all, 216 complete responses were received. In all, 13.9% of respondents had never been vaccinated against rabies, and 20.8% had been exposed to suspect rabid animals, mostly (64.4%) a single time. Other zoonoses were reported by 47.2% of respondents: mostly diseases transmitted via contact (57.4%) especially ringworm, followed by those with oral transmission (21.7%). Most zoonotic infections were reportedly acquired by young veterinarians working in primary care veterinary practice. Cats were the species most commonly reported as the animal source of a zoonotic infection. Veterinarians likely self-diagnosed zoonotic diseases, especially those transmitted by contact. Medical care providers were consulted for diagnosis of more serious diseases. Diagnosis and treatment errors were uncommon. Results of this study emphasize the need to educate future veterinarians during their early years in veterinary school about the risks associated with their future jobs.

Introduction: The opioid use crisis has left nearly 1 million people in need of treatment. States have focused primarily on policies aimed at decreasing the prevalence of opioid use disorder. However, opioid treatment programs (OTPs), an evidence-based modality which can prevent and decrease opioid-related mortality and morbidity, remain highly complex with variation in treatment by state. A focus on evidence-based state-level regulation of OTPs may help improve the unmet need for treatment. This study characterized the variability in state laws that regulate OTPs and examines how this variability is associated with state characteristics. These data provides an opportunity for policymakers to consider regulations that increase access to care and retention in OTPs, which could improve population health. Materials and Methods: Utilizing legal mapping techniques, we identified all regulations governing OTPs in effect on January 1, 2017 and determined whether the most common regulations were consistent with best practices. We then examined how the number and type of regulations were associated with state characteristics. All legal mapping research was conducted between November 2017 and March 2019. Results: We identified 89 different regulations, the most common of which exists in fewer than half of all states; and most exist in less than 25% of states. Eighteen of the 30 most common regulations were inconsistent with best practice recommendations. Overall, variability in the number and type of OTP regulations was related to geographic location as opposed to state size or political leanings. Conclusions: Wide-ranging variability in the regulations of OTPs exists across the U.S. The majority of state OTP regulations are not congruent with best practices.

Objectives: Given public health's emphasis on health disparities in underrepresented racial/ethnic minority communities, having a racially and ethnically diverse faculty is important to ensure adequate public health training. We examined trends in the number of underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (ie, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander) doctoral graduates from public health fields and determined the proportion of persons from underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups who entered academia. Methods: We analyzed repeated cross-sectional data from restricted files collected by the National Science Foundation on doctoral graduates from US institutions during 2003-2015. Our dependent variables were the number of all underrepresented racial/ethnic minority public health doctoral recipients and underrepresented racial/ethnic minority graduates who had accepted academic positions. Using logistic regression models and adjusted odds ratios (aORs), we examined correlates of these variables over time, controlling for all independent variables (eg, gender, age, relationship status, number of dependents). Results: The percentage of underrepresented racial/ethnic minority doctoral graduates increased from 15.4% (91 of 592) in 2003 to 23.4% (296 of 1264) in 2015, with the largest increase occurring among black graduates (from 6.6% in 2003 to 14.1% in 2015). Black graduates (310 of 1241, 25.0%) were significantly less likely than white graduates (2258 of 5913, 38.2%) and, frequently, less likely than graduates from other underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups to indicate having accepted an academic position (all P < .001). Conclusions: Stakeholders should consider targeted programs to increase the number of racial/ethnic minority faculty members in academic public health fields.

Certain characteristics among public health doctoral recipients are correlated with postgraduation employment. More research is needed, but the observed increase in individuals still seeking employment may be attributable to increases in general public health graduates from for-profit institutions.

No abstract