The Concept of Data Utility in Health Risk Assessment: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective

Human and ecological health risk assessments and the decisions that stem from them require the acquisition and analysis of data. In agencies that are responsible for health risk decision-making, data (and/or opinions/judgments) are obtained from sources such as scientific literature, analytical and process measurements, expert elicitation, inspection findings, and public and private research institutions. Although the particulars of conducting health risk assessments of given disciplines may be dramatically different, a common concern is the subjective nature of judging data utility. Often risk assessors are limited to available data that may not be completely appropriate to address the question being asked. Data utility refers to the ability of available data to support a risk-based decision for a particular risk assessment. This article familiarizes the audience with the concept of data utility and is intended to raise the awareness of data collectors (e.g., researchers), risk assessors, and risk managers to data utility issues in health risk assessments so data collection and use will be improved. In order to emphasize the cross-cutting nature of data utility, the discussion has not been organized into a classical partitioning of risk assessment concerns as being either human health- or ecological health-oriented, as per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Program.     

Focus: The Science of Stress: In Times of Adversity: A Neuroscience Perspective on Stress,Health, and Implications for Society Post-pandemic

The relationship between chronic stress and chronic disease (including mental illness) is well established: HPA-axis hyperactivity leads to hormonal dysregulation of primary mediators (eg, glucocorticoids, cytokines, etc.), allostatic overload, and neurological degradation, followed by clinical manifestations of disease. Amid the largest public health crisis of the century lay a myriad of challenges pushing people beyond their limit. From experiencing loss of connection or dealing with loss of life to financial shocks of COVID-19 lockdowns or infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, stress is at an all-time high, threatening both brain and mental health at scale. Fortunately, there is a way forward: the neuroscience of resilience teaches us that it is possible to resist, recover, and redirect the brain from trauma to re-establish balance in the body and improve well-being. At the same time, health follows a social gradient: adverse and protective psychosocial factors are shaped by wider social and economic determinants of health. This paper argues the neurobiology of stress is not separate from health disparities linked to adverse factors (ie, stress) created by complex social and economic contexts. Therefore, the field of neuroscience is challenged to inform multi-context and multi-level approaches and engage with decision-makers to enact policies and interventions aimed at promoting the resilient element in a wider population health context. Undoubtedly, achieving such a goal for current and future generations to benefit and lead healthier lives requires a heroic effort from all key stakeholders. The cost of willful neglect to resolve these issues is too expensive.