Objective To examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with use of My HealtheVet (MHV) by veterans living with HIV. Materials and Methods Veterans Health Administration administrative data were used to identify a cohort of veterans living with HIV in fiscal years 2011–2017. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine demographic characteristics and racial/ethnic differences in MHV registration and tool use. Chi-Square tests were performed to assess associations between race/ethnicity and MHV registration and tool use. Results The highest proportion of registrants were non-Hispanic White veterans living with HIV (59%), followed by Hispanic/Latino (55%) and Black veterans living with HIV (40%). Chi-Square analyses revealed that: (1) MHV account registration was significantly lower for both Black and Hispanic/Latino veterans in comparison to White veterans and (2) Black MHV registrants were less likely to utilize any MHV tool compared with White MHV registrants including Blue Button record download, medication refills, secure messaging, lab, and appointment views. Discussion In line with prior research on personal health record (PHR) use among non-veteran populations, these findings show racial and ethnic inequities in MHV use among veterans living with HIV. Racial and ethnic minorities may be less likely to use PHRs for a myriad of reasons, including PHR privacy concerns, decreased educational attainment, and limited access to the internet. Conclusion This is the first study to examine racial and ethnic disparities in use of MHV tools by veterans living with HIV and utilizing Veterans Health Administration health care. Future research should examine potential moderating factors linked to decreased PHR use among racial and ethnic minority veterans, which could inform strategies to increase PHR use among vulnerable populations.

Most studies find strong evidence that motorcycle helmets protect against injury, but a small number of controversial studies have reported a positive association between helmet use and neck injury. The most commonly cited paper is that of Goldstein (1986). Goldstein obtained and reanalyzed data from the Hurt Study, a prospective, on-scene investigation of 900 motorcycle collisions in the city of Los Angeles. The Goldstein results have been adopted by the anti-helmet community to justify resistance to compulsory motorcycle helmet use on the grounds that helmets may cause neck injuries due to their mass. In the current study, we replicated Goldstein’s models to understand how he obtained his unexpected results, and we then applied modern statistical methods to estimate the association of motorcycle helmet use with head injury, fatal injury, and neck injury among collision-involved motorcyclists. We found Goldstein’s analysis to be critically flawed due to improper data imputation, modeling of extremely sparse data, and misinterpretation of model coefficients. Our new analysis showed that motorcycle helmets were associated with markedly lower risk of head injury (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.31–0.52) and fatal injury (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26–0.74) and with moderately lower but statistically significant risk of neck injury (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40–0.99), after controlling for multiple potential confounders.

No abstract