Explore the vast range of titles available.

According to the Pew Research Center, approximately one quarter of American adults do not have access to broadband internet. This number does not account for the millions of people who are underconnected or lacking a stable internet connection. Although digital disparity in America is not new, the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic has increased our societal dependence on the internet and widened the digital divide. Access to broadband internet has become a basic need in this connected society, linking people to vital resources, such as jobs, education, health care, food, and information. However, it is still an overlooked and understudied issue in public health. In this article, we highlight five key points for why advocating for the expansion of affordable and accessible internet for all should be a priority issue for public health and health promotion. Recent studies offer evidence that digital disenfranchisement contributes to negative health outcomes, economic oppression, and racial injustice. Now more than ever, health advocacy to promote digital equity and inclusion is critical to our meaningful progress toward health equity.

Theoretical research suggests that racialized felony disenfranchisement-a form of structural racism-is likely to undermine the health of Black people, yet empirical studies on the topic are scant. We used administrative data on disproportionate felony disenfranchisement of Black residents across US states, linked to geocoded individual-level health data from the 2016 Health and Retirement Study, to estimate race-specific regression models describing the relationship between racialized disenfranchisement and health among middle-aged and older adults, adjusting for other individual- and state-level factors. Results show that living in states with higher levels of racialized disenfranchisement is associated with more depressive symptoms, more functional limitations, more difficulty performing instrumental activities of daily living, and more difficulty performing activities of daily living among Black people. However, there are no statistically significant relationships between racialized disenfranchisement and health among White people. These findings suggest that policies aiming to mitigate disproportionate Black felony disenfranchisement not only are essential for political inclusion but also may be valuable tools for improving population health equity.

Digital interventions have gained momentum in terms of behavioral health. However, owing to lacking standard approaches or tools for creating digital behavioral interventions, clinical researchers follow widely varying conceptions of how best to go about digital intervention development. Researchers also face significant cost-, time-, and expertise-related challenges in digital intervention development. Improving the availability of tools and guidance for researchers will require a thorough understanding of the motivations and needs of researchers seeking to create digital interventions. This study aims to understand the perceptions of behavioral researchers toward digital interventions, and inform the use of these interventions, by documenting the reasons why researchers are increasingly focusing their efforts on digital interventions and their perspectives on the perceived benefits that digital approaches can provide for researchers and intervention recipients. We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 18 researchers who had experience designing digital behavioral interventions or running studies with them. A convenience sample of interviewees was recruited from among users of the Computerized Intervention Authoring System platform, a web-based tool that facilitates the process of creating and deploying digital interventions in behavioral research. Interviews were conducted over teleconference between February and April 2020. Recordings from the interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed by multiple coders. Interviews were completed with 18 individuals and lasted between 24 and 65 (mean 46.9, SD 11.3) minutes. Interviewees were predominantly female (17/18, 94%) and represented different job roles, ranging from researcher to project or study staff. Four major themes came out of the interviews concerning the benefits of digital interventions for behavioral health: convenience and flexibility for interventionists and recipients, support for implementing evidence-based interventions with fidelity, scaling and improving access to interventions, and getting a foot in the door despite stigma and disenfranchisement. Interviewees described a number of important potential benefits of digital interventions, particularly with respect to scientific rigor, scalability, and overcoming barriers to reaching more people. There are complex considerations with regard to translating behavior change strategies into digital forms of delivery, and interventionists make individual, sometimes unexpected, choices with minimal evidence of their relative effectiveness. Future research should investigate how behavioral researchers can be supported in making these choices toward usability, ease of access, and approachability of digital interventions. Our study underscores the need for authoring platforms that can facilitate the process of creating and deploying digital interventions to reach their full potential for interventionists and recipients alike.

Rural-to-urban migration is reshaping the economic and social landscape of the Global South. Yet migrants often struggle to integrate into cities. We conduct countrywide audit experiments in India to test whether urban politicians discriminate against internal migrants in providing constituency services. Signaling that a citizen is a city newcomer, as opposed to a long-term resident, causes incumbent politicians to be significantly less likely to respond to requests for help. Standard \"nativist\" concerns do not appear to explain this representation gap. We theorize that migrants are structurally disposed to participate in destination-area elections at lower rates than long-term residents. Knowing this, reelectionminded politicians decline to cater to migrant interests. Follow-up experiments support the hypothesis. We expect our findings to generalize to fast-urbanizing democracies, with implications for international immigration too. Policywise, mitigating migrants' de facto disenfranchisement should improve their welfare.

The concept of ‘ownership’ is increasingly central to debates, in the media, health policy and bioethics, about the appropriate management of clinical data. I argue that the language of ownership acts as a metaphor and reflects multiple concerns about current data use and the disenfranchisement of citizens and collectives in the existing data ecosystem. But exactly which core interests and concerns ownership claims allude to remains opaque. Too often, we jump straight from ‘ownership’ to ‘private property’ and conclude ‘the data belongs to the patient’. I will argue here that private property is only one type of relevant relationship between people, communities and data. There are several reasons to doubt that conceptualising data as private property presents a compelling response to concerns about clinical data ownership. In particular I argue that clinical data are co-constructed, so a property account would fail to confer exclusive rights to the patient. A non-property account of ownership acknowledges that the data are ‘about the patient’, and therefore the patient has relevant interests, without jumping to the conclusion that the data ‘belongs to the patient’. On this broader account of ownership, the relevant harm is the severing of the connection between the patient and their data, and the solution is to re-engage and re-connect patients to the data research enterprise.

Though the persistence of voter suppression and disenfranchisement in the US is well-documented, we still know little about their contemporary ideological underpinnings beyond partisanship and racial resentment. Highlighting the Christian Right’s influence in driving anti-democratic sentiment in the post-Civil Rights era, we propose contemporary ideological support for restricting the vote generally, and specifically, to those who prove “worthy,” is undergirded by a pervasive ideology that cloaks authoritarian ethno-traditionalism with the ultimacy and polysemic utility of religious language—Christian nationalism. Nationally representative data collected weeks before the November 2020 elections reveal Christian nationalism is a leading predictor that Americans deny that voter suppression is a problem, believe that the US makes it “too easy to vote,” believe that voter fraud is rampant, and support measures to disenfranchise individuals who could not pass a basic civics test or who committed certain crimes. Interactions show Christian nationalism’s influence is particularly strong among men across most outcomes and, regarding voter suppression, whites compared to Blacks. We argue Christian nationalism seeks to institutionalize founding ideals in which civic participation is rooted in hierarchies, being restricted to a “worthy” few. Appeals to America’s religious heritage thus facilitate stratifying America’s citizenry and justifying restricting participation to preserve dominance.

This research paper examines the international legal status of prisoners’ voting rights within the context of India, framing the denial of voting rights for prisoners as a human rights issue. The study aims to explore the evolving dynamics of disenfranchisement in light of international human rights jurisprudence. Through a research methodology involving a literature review, case studies, and comparative analysis, the article examines the effectiveness of prisoners’ voting rights in different countries. The key findings shed light on the restrictions imposed on inmates and ex-felons voting in various nations, including the USA, the UK, and India. The denial of voting rights is often met with criticism due to its societal impact in the contemporary era. Universal suffrage, which forms the basis of an individual’s dignity in a democratic nation, symbolizes equal participation and serves as a strong foundation for democracy. This research highlights the need for a thorough understanding of the concept of disenfranchisement, as there is no universal principle governing the restrictions on universal suffrage due to criminal charges.

This paper presents new causal estimates of incarceration’s effect on voting, using administrative data on criminal sentencing and voter turnout. I use the random case assignment process of a major county court system as a source of exogenous variation in the sentencing of misdemeanor cases. Focusing on misdemeanor defendants allows for generalization to a large population, as such cases are very common. Among first-time misdemeanor defendants, I find evidence that receiving a short jail sentence decreases voting in the next election by several percentage points. Results differ starkly by race. White defendants show no demobilization, while Black defendants show substantial turnout decreases due to jail time. Evidence from pre-arrest voter histories suggest that this difference could be due to racial differences in exposure to arrest. These results paint a picture of large-scale, racially-disparate voter demobilization in the wake of incarceration.

The humanitarian crisis revealed as a result of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico demonstrates a long history of US colonial neglect and human rights violations. This reality has made it especially difficult for the people of Puerto Rico to achieve their right to the highest attainable standard of health. The impacts are pervasive, resulting in disparities in Puerto Rican health, including water access and quality; wealth, including economic loss and disinvestment; and sustainability of the island’s resources. As a result of failed governmental protection and support, public health issues related to access to care, a failing infrastructure, and discrimination all contributed to crisis on the island. A human rights framework is necessary to assess the ongoing human rights violations of the quality of life to support millions of American citizens on the island. This essay utilizes a rights-based approach to reveal historical disenfranchisement of Puerto Rico before the storms, identifies the specific human rights violations that resulted from the US government’s lack of emergency preparedness and responsiveness, and demands rebuilding the island to reconcile all that has been lost.

Attitudinal differences between urban and rural voters in America have been in the spotlight in recent years and engaging rural populations politically has been growing in importance, particularly since the 2016 presidential election. Meanwhile, social and geographic sorting is increasing the salience of a rural identity that drives distinct policy preferences. While recent research has examined how rural identities drive social and economic policy preferences, rural Americans are also particularly relevant to the fate of environmental policy. Farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners manage huge portions of American lands and watersheds and are important stakeholders in the implementation of environmental policies. Despite this, the environmental policy preferences of rural Americans have received little attention from the research community. This study fills a gap in the literature by investigating how collective identities among rural Americans drive environmental policy preferences. Through eight focus groups and thirty-five interviews with rural voters across America (total n=105), this study explores how four components of rural American identity—connection to nature, resentment/disenfranchisement, rootedness, and self-reliance—inform specific rural perspectives on environmental policy. The findings have implications for how to best design, communicate, and implement environmental policies in a way that can better engage rural Americans on this issue.