Research News Roundup: October 29, 2026

Journal: JAMA Health Forum, 2026, doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum. 2026.3431

Authors: Jessica Williams, Mia Kouveliotes, Nev Jones, & Morgan C. Shields

Abstract:

Importance: While there is much research on stigma toward marginalized populations, public perceptions regarding deservingness of basic human and civil rights of these groups have not been examined in a nationwide sample of US adults.

Objective: To understand the US public’s perceptions regarding deservingness of basic human and contested civil rights for people with severe physical disabilities (SPDs), severe mental illness (SMI), and substance use disorders (SUDs).

Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study was a nationwide US internet-based quota panel survey of US adults (aged ≥18 years) who completed the survey. Responses were collected from January 17 to February 12, 2025.

Main outcomes and measures: Participants rated their support for 5 human rights (adequate standard of living, high standards of health, legal capacity, freedom from torture, living independently) and 3 civil rights (being a parent, running for political office, owning a gun) for people with SPDs, SMI, and SUDs using a 5-point Likert scale, with marginalized subgroups presented to participants in randomized order. McNemar test for paired binary data was used to examine differences in mean support across subgroups, and linear probability regression models were used to identify demographic variables associated with support.

Results: In this survey of 1442 US adult participants (849 female [58.9%]; 588 male [40.8%]; 3 nonbinary [0.2%]; and 2 preferred not to say [0.1%]), the SPD subgroup received significantly higher support across all 5 human rights and 3 civil rights compared with SMI and SUD subgroups. For example, 79.0% (95% CI, 76.9%-81.2%) of participants supported the right to live independently for people with SPDs, while 67.0% supported this right for those with SMI (95% CI, 64.6%-69.5%) and 68.4% supported this right for those with SUDs (95% CI, 66.0%-70.9%). Civil rights received lower support across all 3 subgroups; for example, 40.1% (95% CI, 37.5%-42.6%) supported the right to run for political office for those with SMI and 41.4% (95% CI, 38.8%-44.0%) for those with SUDs compared with 62.7% (95% CI, 60.1%-65.2%) for those with SPDs. Democratic affiliation and lived experience with behavioral health care were associated with higher support for human rights (eg, among those with SUDs, up to 17.1 and 14.2 percentage points higher support, respectively). Male sex and younger age (18-24 years) were associated with greater support for civil rights (eg, male sex with 17.9 percentage points higher support for gun ownership among those with SPDs and age 18-24 years with a 27.1 percentage-point difference among those with SMI).

Conclusions and relevance: These findings contribute important evidence to the existing literature on stigma, highlighting discrepancies in public support for basic human and contested civil rights across marginalized subgroups, which can inform interventions to address public attitudes toward people with behavioral health conditions.

To read the full text, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: Communications Health, 2026, doi: 10.1038/s44528-026-00037-y

Authors: Miao Feng, Zizi Papacharissi, Chandler C. Carter, Mateusz Borowiecki, Simon Page, Ganna Kostygina, … Sherry L. Emery

Abstract:

Background: Digital public health campaigns often report robust reach and engagement metrics, yet these metrics obscure deeper structural vulnerabilities. We define structural fragility as the declining capacity of actors to maintain network visibility in competitive digital communication environments, and assess it in Twitter/X discourse on U.S. e-cigarette prevention (2014-2023).

Methods: Accounts were classified into five categories (Health, Commercial, Vape Community, Organic, Other). Longitudinal network analysis tracked three dimensions of structural fragility: positional (amplification and centrality), community (fragmentation and homophily), and core (k-core presence). Annual directed retweet networks were constructed, and modularity, in-degree, PageRank, eigenvector centrality, and k-core composition were computed. Regression models were adjusted for the number of participating accounts.

Results: Here we show the network contracted from 36,204 accounts in 2014 to 800 in 2022, a 97.8% reduction. It fragmented into increasingly homophilous clusters (modularity 0.16 to 0.81; within-category retweeting 6.7% to 42.6%). Health accounts fell from 59.1% of the deepest k-core in 2014 to 3.8% in 2015, as Vape Community accounts rose to 78.8%. Per-capita amplification declined 95.7%, and Health PageRank share fell from 0.41 to 0.34, with amplification concentrated among a few accounts (eigenvector Gini ≥ 0.93). These declines persisted after adjustment for account numbers.

Conclusions: Health actors remained active while losing structural position, a “bunker effect” of broadcasting without amplification. These findings challenge exposure-based evaluation models. Core embedding, within-category concentration, and PageRank share are computable from public network data and offer practical measures for campaign evaluation and platform transparency.

To read the full text, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: JAMA Psychiatry, 2026, doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2026.2497

Authors: Beth Han, Wilson M. Compton, Jennifer A. Hobin, & Nora D. Volkow

Abstract:

Importance: The number of US adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD) has declined, whereas the number with cannabis use disorder (CUD) has increased. Little is known about how changes in the prevalence and severity of AUD and CUD vary by age and sex.

Objective: To investigate trends in AUD and CUD prevalence and severity by age and sex.

Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study examined data from adult participants in the 2021 to 2024 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. This study was started and completed in March 2026.

Exposure: Alcohol and cannabis use.

Main outcomes and measures: Past-year prevalence and severity of AUD and CUD using DSM-5 criteria.

Results: From 2021 through 2024 among 186 823 participants (51.3% female; 4.9% aged 18-20 years; 24.1% aged 21-34 years; 24.7% aged 35-49 years), past-year CUD prevalence increased among males (from 7.3% [95% CI, 6.6%-8.1%] to 9.3% [95% CI, 8.6%-10.1%]; P < .001) and females (from 4.5% [95% CI, 4.1%-5.0%] to 5.6% [95% CI, 5.2%-6.1%]; P = .01). Moderate-to-severe CUD prevalence among males increased from 3.1% (95% CI, 2.8%-3.6%) to 4.1% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.5%) (P < .001), especially among males aged 35 to 49 years (from 2.7% [95% CI, 2.0%-3.6%] to 3.9% [95% CI, 3.2%-4.8%]; P = .01) and males aged 50 years or older (from 0.6% [95% CI, 0.3%-1.0%] to 1.2% [95% CI, 0.8%-1.7%]; P = .02). Among females, moderate-to-severe CUD prevalence increased from 1.7% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.0%) to 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3%-2.8%) (P < .001), specifically for females aged 21 to 34 years (from 4.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-5.1%] to 5.6% [95% CI, 4.8%-6.5%]; P = .04), 35 to 49 years (from 1.2% [95% CI, 0.8%-1.8%] to 2.0% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.5%]; P = .01), and 50 years or older (from 0.1% [95% CI, 0.04%-0.3%] to 0.7% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.0%]; P < .001). Among females with CUD, moderate-to-severe CUD prevalence increased from 37.0% (95% CI, 32.5%-41.8%) to 45.0% (95% CI, 41.1%-49.0%) (P = .03). However, moderate-to-severe AUD prevalence remained stable among males overall (except for declines among males aged 21-34 years) and was stable among females overall and within all subgroups. Most males and females aged 18 to 20 years and males aged 21 to 34 years with CUD had moderate-to-severe CUD (eg, 51.0%-61.0% in 2024), with consistent patterns from 2022 through 2024.

Conclusions and relevance: This cross-sectional study found divergent age- and sex-specific patterns from 2021 through 2024, with moderate-to-severe CUD prevalence increasing and moderate-to-severe AUD prevalence remaining stable across males, females, and most subgroups. The increased prevalence underscores the importance of early detection, routine screening, timely access to evidence-based CUD treatment, and targeted strategies to counter increasing acceptance, availability, and potency of cannabis products. High prevalence of moderate-to-severe CUD among adults who use cannabis challenges the notion that cannabis has low addictive potential.

To read the full text, please visit the publisher’s website.

Journal: Prevention Science, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s11121-026-01994-0

Authors: Elizabeth C. Long, Matthew A. Ogan, Annalise J. Tolley, Leanna Kalinowski, Jessica Pugel, Patrick O’Neill, D. Max Crowley, & J. Taylor Scott

Abstract:

Understanding the factors that influence whether research evidence on substance use and substance use disorders (SU/SUD) gets written into legislation can help identify opportunities for maximizing its uptake by policymakers and scaling up preventive interventions. Yet, limited work has examined the contexts that influence the adoption of evidence-based interventions and other uses of research evidence (URE) in US state-level bills. Baseline data were drawn from a randomized clinical trial. Using a multi-level design, we tested whether state-level contextual variables (level 2; e.g., economic conditions) and bill-level variables (level 1; e.g., sponsor count) influenced whether research was used in SU/SUD bills, and whether bill enactment was associated with its inclusion of URE. Legislation introduced between 2017 and 2022 (N = 47,087 bills) from 30 US states was examined. Of the 14 variables analyzed, five were significantly associated with URE. These included two level 2 state context variables: professionalism and innovation rate, as well as two level 1 bill-level variables: sponsor/co-sponsor count and bipartisan sponsorship/co-sponsorship, which were associated with an increased likelihood of SU/SUD bills containing URE. Lobbying regulations (a level 2 state context variable) was associated with a decreased likelihood. Bills that were enacted were more likely to contain URE than those that were not enacted. The variables that increased the likelihood of SU/SUD bills containing URE may reflect state legislators’ capacity to use research and their value of it. However, some variables that were theoretically hypothesized to be associated with URE in bills were not (e.g., research and development expenditure). These findings suggest opportunities remain to improve URE in SU/SUD legislation.

To read the full text, please visit the publisher’s website.