Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Dr. Sameer Hinduja is one of the world’s foremost experts on cyberbullying, adolescent mental health, and digital safety. A Professor at Florida Atlantic University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Co-Director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, he has advised the White House, testified before federal agencies, and worked with schools and tech companies worldwide to protect young people online. View Full Profile→ Amid the U.S. youth mental health crisis, his latest peer-reviewed study, published through FAU Newsdesk, reveals that hope not only boosts well-being and academic achievement but also acts as a powerful shield against bullying and cyberbullying in adolescents. Results, published in the journal Frontiers in Sociology, show that students with less hope were 56% more likely to cyberbully others than their peers over their lifetime, and 57% more likely over the last 30 days. Those with more hope were 36% less likely to cyberbully others over their lifetime and over the last 30 days when compared to their peers with lower levels of hope. The key takeaway? Hope matters. It buffers against the urge to aggress against others online and off. “Hope acts as a powerful protective factor against both school bullying and cyberbullying among youth,” said Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., lead author, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. “When young people believe in their ability to set meaningful goals and stay motivated to reach them, they are far less likely to lash out or harm others. Hope gives them a sense of direction – and that can make all the difference.” Hinduja's previous research has been featured in The Washington Post, where he emphasized that cyberbullying is not just emotionally distressing—it can cause trauma responses in teens that mirror clinical Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “As our research clearly shows, cyberbullying in any form — whether it’s exclusion from a group chat or direct threats — can lead to significant trauma in youth,” Sameer Hinduja, a professor in Florida Atlantic University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and the paper’s lead author, said in a news release. “We were surprised to find that no single type of cyberbullying caused more harm than others; all carried a similar risk of traumatic outcomes. This means we can’t afford to dismiss or trivialize certain behaviors as ‘less serious’ — being left out or targeted by rumors can be just as detrimental as more overt attacks.” Why This Matters Now As students return to school this fall, Hinduja’s research offers a clear reminder: digital harm is real harm. Emotional safety in online environments deserves the same urgency as physical safety in school buildings. His work calls for: • Preventive education over punitive responses • Trauma-informed approaches in schools • Support systems that validate and protect victims • Tech accountability and policy reform ⸻ Dr. Hinduja is available for media interviews on topics such as: Adolescent Mental Health • Cyberbullying • PTSD • Digital Safety • School Culture Click on the icon below to connect.
Jennifer Oldham of ChristianaCare Champions Life-Saving CPR Care
“Whether you’re a brother or whether you’re a mother/ You’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive.” Nearly 50 years since this song’s debut, the faint symphony of the Bees Gees’ “Stayin’ Alive” can be still heard around the world, though not only through an ordinary radio or Bluetooth speaker. Some people, like Jennifer Oldham, MSN, RN, CEN, AACC, play the tune in their thoughts when giving and demonstrating rhythmic CPR compressions. The song’s tempo serves as guidance to match the timing of CPR chest compressions. Oldham, a cardiovascular quality and innovation nurse program manager at ChristianaCare’s Center for Heart & Vascular Health, has dedicated the last three decades to teaching others about harnessing the power of CPR to save patients and loved ones. She knows firsthand the miracles CPR can produce. Knowledge is power Community members, health care professionals and students have the ability to save a life thanks to Oldham. She’s conducted dozens of classes and lectures to give nurses and bystanders the tools and confidence to perform CPR in an emergency. Her profound work recently earned her an honor at the American Heart Association’s Delaware Heart Ball. The Heart Association recognized four individuals representing four key tenets or “chambers” — “discovery, advocacy, equity, and knowledge.” Oldham was chosen as the honoree for the Knowledge Chamber for her dedication to empowering others with life-saving education and tools. “Jen Oldham’s work is the heartbeat of our Knowledge Chamber. Her dedication to CPR education reflects the very mission of the American Heart Association – to ensure more lives are saved through awareness and action,” said Ellen Vild, director of the Delaware Heart Ball. “Jen’s story reminds us that knowledge is power, but more importantly, it’s compassion in action. We are honored to recognize her as someone who lives that mission every single day.” Oldham’s colleague Neil Wimmer, M.D., MS, interventional cardiologist and medical director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, was delighted to see her recognized. “Jen is an amazing colleague and friend who is driven by compassion and empathy. She makes everyone in our state safer, whether they know it or not,” Wimmer said. The gift of life To Oldham, teaching others about CPR is rewarding. She makes a meaningful impact on patients’ lives every day through care, education, emotional support and community connection. CPR is more than just a technique, she said: It’s a lifechanging bond. “In my opinion, performing CPR is one of the most kind and loving acts one person can do for another. It is incredibly intimate … laying hands on someone’s chest and pushing, circulating their blood to save their life,” Oldham said. “What a beautiful gift to give someone — the gift of life, the gift of more time with their loved one.” Walking to save lives The ChristianaCare team and Oldham support heart health as part of the annual Wilmington Heart Walk. Last year they raised over $42,000 for the American Heart Association to fund research and education to help Americans live longer, healthier lives. Oldham has been a co-chair of the event since 2017 and is a strong advocate of the AHA’s mission. Valerie Dechant, M.D., MBA, FACP, chief medical officer of Christiana Hospital, knows the value of Oldham’s efforts in the community. “Jen’s passion for educating the public about acute cardiac emergencies is unmatched,” she said. “With decades of experience and a remarkable ability to translate clinical expertise into clear actionable knowledge, she empowers others to learn to feel confident and prepared in a crisis.”
New National UMass Amherst Poll Finds President Trump’s Job Approval Gap Slides 6 Points Since April
Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at www.umass.edu/poll Public approval of Donald Trump’s presidency has dropped by 6 percentage points since April and his approval rating is now 20 points underwater, 38-58, according to a new national University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll of 1,000 respondents conducted July 25-30. “Six months into his second term as president, Donald Trump looks to be on the ropes with the American public,” says Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll. “Trump’s approval ratings, already historically low for a newly elected president, continue to sink with close to 6-in-10 Americans (58%) expressing disapproval of the job that Trump is doing in office. While Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans and conservatives, Trump’s time in office is viewed more negatively across genders, generations, classes and races, with majorities of each of these groups disapproving of Trump’s performance. With over three years left in the Trump administration, there is still time for him to right the ship and fulfil the promises that catapulted him to the presidency, but the president is not off to the start he or his supporters envisioned.” In the previous UMass Poll, conducted as Trump approached the three-month anniversary of his return to the White House, Trump held a 44-51 approval rating, buoyed by a positive overall approval on his handling of immigration. The new poll, however, has found a significant shift in views on this issue. “Immigration has been central Trump’s political campaigns and his strongest issue in his first few months in office, but the percentage of people who say he is handling it well has dropped substantially from 50% four months ago to just 41% today, a 9-point drop,” explains Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “Trump came into the presidency promising change, and he’s made significant alterations in many areas of federal policy,” says Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “He came into office believing that he had limited time to make the changes he promised his most ardent supporters, and moved with unparalleled speed to enact these changes, including sometimes by legally questionable means. Now, it seems, he’s reaping the consequences as a large majority of Americans don’t like these changes. Clear majorities say that Trump has handled his key issues – immigration (54%), inflation (63%), jobs (55%) and tariffs (63%) – not very well or not well at all. With so many Americans grading his handling of public policy poorly, it’s no wonder they disapprove of his presidency.” Rhodes also notes that the president is seeing an erosion in support from one of his most reliable groups of supporters: men. “Trump has cultivated a ‘masculine’ reputation and sought to build support among American men but, strikingly, we find that support for Trump has deteriorated most substantially among members of this group,” says Rhodes. “In April, Trump enjoyed approval from 48% of men, compared with 39% of women. Now, only 39% of men express approval of Trump, compared with 35% of women. “In addition to losing support among men, Trump has seen approval for his presidency crumble among political independents, a critical swing constituency,” Rhodes adds. “While 31% of independents approved of his presidency in April, that number is now down 10 percentage points to 21%. This is really bad news for Trump, and for Republicans who depend on support from independents in close elections.” “Polarization has changed the interpretation of presidential approval ratings,” says Alexander Theodoridis, associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “Partisans just aren’t willing to evaluate presidents from the other side positively and are reluctant to say negative things about presidents from their own party. So, approval numbers fluctuate within a narrower range. Gone are the days when George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush both achieved approval numbers over 90%. This is certainly true for Trump, who is likely the most polarizing figure in modern American politics. Even in this polarized environment, though, Trump’s approval ratings are low by any standard – he is very close to the practical floor. Especially noteworthy is that nearly half of Americans say they strongly disapprove of Trump and the percentage of Americans who say they strongly approve of Trump has decreased substantially. Even among Republican respondents, only half strongly approve of the president. The GOP should be concerned about these numbers heading into the odd-year elections in 2025 and, especially, the midterm elections in 2026. It is very difficult for a party to win when its leader is this unpopular.” Americans’ views on Epstein and Trump Of all issues surveyed in the latest University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll, one appears to be the greatest drag on Trump’s presidency: Jeffrey Epstein and Trump’s handling of the evidence gathered in the federal investigation of the accused sex-trafficker and his long-time friend. “The Epstein scandal remains a serious vulnerability – indeed, quite possibly, the most serious vulnerability – for Trump right now,” Rhodes says. “Fully 70% of Americans believe he has handled this issue ‘not too well’ or ‘not well at all,’ and nearly two-thirds (63%) believe his administration is hiding information about Epstein. The Epstein scandal is also likely undermining public confidence in Trump more broadly. Indeed, we find that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that Trump is corrupt and nearly 70% believe he is dishonest. Critically, these numbers mean that many Republicans and conservatives are disappointed with Trump’s handling of the Epstein situation. Republican frustration with Trump’s handling of the Epstein case could erode enthusiasm for his presidency and for Republicans in 2026.” “If Trump and those around him have been wishing the Jeffrey Epstein story would disappear, their wishes have not been granted,” Theodoridis says. “Most Americans (77%) tell us they have heard a lot or some about the Epstein case. In addition to believing that the Trump administration is hiding important Epstein case information, the vast majority of respondents say that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the Trump DOJ’s handling of the Epstein case (59%), that Donald Trump was good friends with Epstein (67%), and that a list of Epstein’s clients exists (70%). Even substantial numbers of Trump voters believe these things. And, when it comes to an Epstein ‘cover-up,’ it seems the buck stops with Trump himself. While a lot of Americans blame Attorney General Pam Bondi (59%), FBI Director Kash Patel (49%), and House Speaker Mike Johnson (47%) for hiding information about the Epstein case, a whopping 81% blame President Trump.” “The controversy over the handling of the Epstein files by the Trump administration has – interestingly – brought Americans together,” Nteta adds. “While on most issues, we see clear and persistent generational, class and racial divisions; on Epstein, Americans across these divides speak with one voice. This controversy has even resulted in agreement across partisan lines as majorities of Democrats and Republicans support a special prosecutor and believe a list of clients exists, and disapproval of Trump’s handling of the whole matter is surprisingly seen among members of Trump’s base, as 43% of Republicans and conservatives indicate that Trump has not handled this issue well.” “Where Trump faces his poorest rating in our poll is on perceived corruption and dishonesty,” adds La Raja. “A clear plurality (49%) sees Trump as ‘very dishonest,’ with an additional 20% saying that he is ‘somewhat dishonest.’ And 45% see him as ‘very corrupt,’ with an additional 20% as ‘somewhat corrupt.’ Only about one-third reject those labels entirely. Trump also gets low ratings on transparency – a majority (52%) say Trump is not at all transparent, his weakest score after dishonesty. Only 23% believe that he’s very transparent. For a candidate who brands himself as a truth-teller and disruptor, this appears to be a credibility gap.” “Strength is Trump’s strongest attribute,” La Raja explains. “Fifty-eight percent see him as very or somewhat strong, indicating appeal among his base and possibly swing voters who value ‘toughness.’ However, views on his competence are split evenly, with 52% saying he’s competent to some degree, while 48% say not at all.” Voter Regret? “Since President Trump took office, a number of reports of regretful Trump voters have been covered in the nation’s leading media outlets,” Nteta says. “From voters upset with Trump’s immigration policies to supporters who take issue with the president’s unwillingness to release the files associated with the Epstein case, there seemed to be a wellspring of regret among Trump’s once loyal base. Our results suggest that while there are, in fact, areas where the president is weak, most notably on his handling of the economy and the Epstein controversy. When asked directly, close to 9-in-10 (86%) would vote for Trump again if given the opportunity to revisit their 2024 presidential vote choice. These results indicate that the number of regretful voters covered in the mainstream press may be overblown, as the overwhelming majority of Trump voters remain in the president’s camp.” “Only 1% of Trump voters say they regret their vote and would choose differently, 2% say they ‘might’ choose differently and 3% say they wish they hadn’t voted at all,” Theodoridis says. “When we simply ask voters how they would vote if they could go back and recast their ballot, 6% of Trump voters tell us they would vote for Harris, while only 2% of Harris voters say they would switch to Trump. There is clearly more erosion in support among Trump voters than among Harris voters and, in what is likely small consolation to Harris and her campaign team, significantly more 2024 non-voters who say they wish they had voted indicate they would now cast a vote for the former vice president. In a relatively close election, shifts of these magnitudes might have been decisive, but there are no ‘take-backs’ in electoral politics, so these numbers are best used to inform choices going forward.” “Our results are not wholly positive for President Trump, and there exist areas of concern for his team moving forward,” Nteta warns. “Since April, the number of Trump voters expressing strong confidence in their vote for Trump has declined by 5 percentage points. Additionally, we find small increases in the number of Trump supporters who have mixed feelings about their vote and who indicate that they would ‘rather not have voted.’ Finally, 14% of Trump voters indicate that they would not vote for Trump if given the chance to revisit, while only 8% of Harris voters express a similar sentiment. Time will tell whether the growing number of disaffected Trump voters are the canaries in the coal mine, indicating a larger problem among the Trump coalition and the MAGA movement more generally.” “We do find a meaningful percentage – 31% – of Trump voters unwilling to say they feel very confident they made the right choice,” Theodoridis adds. “Nineteen percent of Trump voters tell us they are still confident but have concerns, and 6% tell us they have mixed feelings about their vote. Given what we know about the psychological predispositions against admitting to having been wrong, these numbers suggest some softening in support for Trump among the very voters who returned him to the White House last November. This should certainly be alarming for Republican politicians. However, for Democrats or journalists looking for a mass mea culpa from Trump voters, our numbers are, perhaps, sobering.” Methodology This University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll of 1,000 respondents nationally was conducted by YouGov July 25-30. YouGov interviewed 1,057 total respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The frame was constructed by stratified sampling from the full 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) one-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements (using the person weights on the public use file). The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, region, and home ownership. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then post-stratified on 2020 and 2024 presidential vote choice as ranked on gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories) and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight. The demographic marginals and their interlockings were based on the sample frame. The marginal distribution of 2020 presidential vote choice and its demographic interlockings were based on a politically representative “modeled frame” of US adults, using the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata file, public voter file records, the 2020 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration supplements, the 2020 National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll, and the 2020 CES surveys, including demographics and 2020 presidential vote. The marginal distribution of 2024 vote choice was based on official ballot counts compiled by the University of Florida Election Labs and CNN. Demographic interlockings for 2024 vote choice were based on CNN’s 2024 Exit Polls. The margin of error of this poll is 3.5%. Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at www.umass.edu/poll
Keep kids reading all summer: Expert tips to make it fun
As July winds down, those summer reading lists might still be sitting – unopened – on nightstands. But it’s not too late to spark a love of reading that lasts well beyond the school year. University of Delaware experts Roberta Michnick Golinkoff and Rebecca Joella specialize in early childhood literacy and know how to make reading feel less like homework and more like play. “We want to make reading fun, instead of a drag or something we have to push kids to do,” says Golinkoff. “Reading with the family totally normalizes it, and if kids think their family is excited about reading, they are more likely to be excited too.” She recommends turning reading into a screen-free family ritual or reading aloud together – even for kids who already know how to read. Joella agrees. "Visiting a local library is an excellent summer activity. Many libraries have summer reading programs for children that encourage reading, so participating in one of those is a lot of fun." Books like "Llama Llama Loves Camping" can lead to a backyard campout – tent, picnic and all. Some summer favorites include "Pete the Cat: Pete at the Beach," "Summer" by Alice Low and "Beach Day" by Karen Roosa – lighthearted stories that celebrate the season and build early literacy skills along the way. Worried about the “summer slide”? Golinkoff notes the impact is often greater for children from under-resourced families. That’s why she helped create Playful Learning Landscapes, transforming everyday public spaces into interactive learning hubs. She’s also leading a global effort to provide free bilingual e-books through the Stories with Clever Hedgehog project – originally launched to support Ukrainian children displaced by war. Golinkoff is available to share insights on early literacy, summer learning and why playful education works.
Julian Ku Testifies in Foreign Abuse of U.S. Courts Hearing
On Tuesday, July 22, 2025, Professor Julian Ku testified at the Foreign Abuse of U.S. Courts hearing held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet. The hearing explored how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) currently utilizes the U.S. Court system in a way that has been deemed inappropriate. It also covered targeted actions that can be taken to contest and prevent the CCP’s ability to use the court system in that manner in the future. Additionally, Professor Ku was recently awarded the Freedom and Opportunity Academic Prize. The prize recognizes higher education professionals whose innovative work advances conservative policy priorities.
Study forecasted deadly flash flooding in Texas years ago
The catastrophic flooding of the Guadalupe River in Kerr County, Texas, took place at lightning speed, catching everyone off guard. But the University of Delaware's Jennifer Horney says the risk of flash flooding in the area has been increasing for more than two decades. Horney, an epidemiologist and disaster researcher at the University of Delaware, studied flash flooding in that specific area while at Texas A&M University. She can discuss the following: • This area of Central Texas was designated as “Flash Flood Alley” in 2005 by the Flood Safety Education Program. It has long had high risk from flash flooding, which have been predicted to increase in intensity. • Flash Flood Alley is the area along the Balcones Escarpment, with river valleys and steep limestone cliffs. Extreme rainfall events – the heaviest 1% of all events – have increased in frequency and magnitude by 30% since 1960. • Urbanization and population growth in this area put more people at risk and the annual number of flood fatalities in Texas typically exceeds that of all other states. Several gaps in public risk perception persist even as risks increase with few understanding the life-threatening risks of these events. To arrange an interview with Horney, visit her profile and click on the "contact" button; or contact UD media relations.
LSU AgCenter Research Enables Better Flood Protection for Homes
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recently released its new standard for flood-resistant design and construction, ASCE/SEI 24-24, which provides new minimum requirements that can be adopted for all structures subject to building codes and floodplain management regulations. The new elevation standard was directly supported by LSU research and should help reduce flood risk and make flood insurance more affordable. “Without the research by the LSU AgCenter, the advancements made to the elevation requirements would not have been possible,” said Manny Perotin, co-chair of the Association of State Floodplain Managers’ Nonstructural Floodproofing Committee, who helped update the standard. “Dr. Carol Friedland’s research shows there are better ways to protect communities from flooding than adding one foot of additional freeboard.” The research team, led by Friedland, an engineer, professor, and director of LSU AgCenter’s LaHouse, showed how previous standards were failing to protect some homeowners. They mapped the impact of moving from a standard based on a fixed freeboard amount to being based on real risk in every census tract in the U.S. In response to these findings, they developed a free online tool to help builders, planners, managers, and engineers calculate the elevation required under the new standards. “Many on the committee said it would be too hard to do these complex calculations,” said Adam Reeder, principal at the engineering and construction firm CDMSmith, who helped lead the elevation working group for the new ASCE 24 elevation standards. “But the LSU AgCenter’s years of research in this area and the development of the tool makes calculations and implementation simple. This allowed the new elevation standard to get passed.” Flooding, the biggest risk to homes in Louisiana, continues to threaten investments and opportunities to build generational wealth. On top of flood losses, residents see insurance premiums increase without resources to help them make informed decisions and potentially lower costs. In response to this problem, Friedland is working on developing a whole suite of tools together with more than 130 partners as part of a statewide Disaster Resilience Initiative. When presenting to policy makers and various organizations, Friedland often starts by asking what percentage of buildings they want to flood in their community in the next 50 years. “Of course, we all want this number to be zero,” Friedland said. “But we have been building and designing so 40% will flood. People have a hard time believing this, but it’s the reality of how past standards did not adequately address flood risk.” Designing to the 100-year elevation means a building has a 0.99 chance of not flooding in any given year. But when you run that probability over a period of 50 years (0.99 x 0.99 x 0.99… 50 times, or 0.99 ^ 50), the number you end up with is a 60.5% chance of not flooding in 50 years. This means a 39.5% chance of flooding at least once. “We’ve been building to the 100-year elevation while wanting the protection of building to the 500-year elevation, which is a 10% chance of flooding in 50 years,” Friedland said. “Now, with the higher ASCE standard, we can finally get to 10% instead of 40%.” As the AgCenter’s research led to guidelines, then to this new standard, Friedland has also been providing testimony to the International Code Council to turn the stronger standard into code. In May, Friedland helped lead a workshop at the Association of State Floodplain Managers’ national conference, held in New Orleans. There, she educated floodplain managers about the new standard while demonstrating LSU’s web-based calculation tool, which was designed for professionals, while her team also develops personalized decision-making tools such as Flood Safe Home for residents. At the conference, Friedland received the 2025 John R. Sheaffer Award for Excellence in Floodproofing. More than two-thirds of the cost of natural hazards in Louisiana comes from flooding, according to LSU AgCenter research in partnership with the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness for the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. That cost was recently estimated to rise to $3.6 billion by 2050. “Historically, we have lived with almost a 40% chance of flooding over 50 years, which in most people’s opinion is too high—and the number could be even higher,” Reeder said. “Most building owners don’t understand the risk they are living with, and it only becomes apparent after a flood. The work done by the LSU AgCenter is critical in improving resilience in communities that can’t afford to be devastated by flooding.” “This may be the most significant upgrade in the nation’s flood loss reduction standards since the creation of the National Flood Insurance Program minimums in 1973, and it could not come at a better time as annual flood losses in the country now average more than $45 billion per year,” said Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers. In addition to LaHouse’s work to prevent flooding, Friedland’s team is also working to increase energy efficiency in homes to help residents save money on utility bills. Their HEROES program, an acronym for home energy resilience outreach, education, and support, is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and has already reached 140,000 people in Louisiana. Article originally posted here.
Food is medicine, and this professor has the research to prove it
For more than 20 years, Dr. Allison Karpyn has worked to understand and address food insecurity in America and beyond — studying how communities access healthy food, how policy shapes those opportunities and how local partnerships can make meaningful change. A professor in the University of Delaware’s College of Education and Human Development and co-director of its Center for Research in Education and Social Policy, Karpyn has published extensively on topics including food deserts, healthy corner store initiatives, school nutrition programs and strategies to bring farmer’s markets to underserved areas. Her work, which blends rigorous research with community-based implementation, has appeared in leading journals such as Pediatrics, Preventive Medicine and Health Affairs. Karpyn has also worked directly with nonprofit organizations, government agencies and retailers to pilot and evaluate programs designed to increase access to high-quality food in low-income neighborhoods. Her focus is on actionable, data-informed solutions to persistent challenges — from childhood hunger to structural barriers in the food supply system. Now, Karpyn’s expertise is being tapped as part of Delaware’s new Food is Medicine Committee, a statewide initiative under the Delaware Council on Farm and Food Policy. The committee seeks to connect nutrition and health care to improve outcomes, lower costs and strengthen local food systems — goals that align closely with Karpyn’s career-spanning mission. For journalists exploring food policy, hunger, public health and the future of food access, Karpyn is a key source of insight, research and real-world perspective. She can be contacted by clicking her profile.
Mental health risks spike for young LGBTQ+ men of color, new study shows
As Pride Month shines a spotlight on the progress and resilience of LGBTQ+ communities, it also serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges — especially the toll that stigma continues to take on mental health. A new in Developmental Psychology study from the University of Delaware’s Eric Layland, assistant professor in the College of Education and Human Development, reveals just how urgent the need for tailored mental health support is — particularly for Black, Latinx and Afro-Latinx gay, bisexual and other sexual minority young men. Published during a time when national attention turns toward LGBTQ+ visibility, the study tracks the mental health trajectories of over 400 cisgender men between the ages of 18 and 29, focusing on how experiences of racism, heterosexism, or both — what Layland terms compound stigma — influence patterns of depression and anxiety. The results are stark: participants who experienced frequent racism and heterosexism across relationships and settings showed the earliest and most severe symptoms of anxiety and depression, with mental health challenges peaking during late adolescence and early adulthood. While symptoms tended to decline by age 24, these years — critical for education, identity formation and economic independence — were marked by emotional strain. "This study emphasizes how multiple sources of discrimination converge to impact the mental health of sexual minority men of color," Layland said. The research calls for early, culturally responsive mental health interventions that help young sexual minority men of color cope with stigma and build resilience. Layland’s team points to interventions that not only teach coping skills but also foster connection, celebrate cultural identity and create peer networks for support. Layland, who specializes in LGBTQ+ development and affirmative interventions, underscores the importance of systemic change as well. “We need clinical and community resources that are adapted to address the intersecting discrimination experienced by sexual minority men of color, especially in their late teens in early twenties,” said Layland. Supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Mental Health and UD, this study arrives at a crucial time for researchers, educators and community organizations working to create more inclusive and supportive environments. For journalists covering Pride, mental health, or intersectional equity, Layland’s work offers a powerful, data-driven look at what young LGBTQ+ people of color are facing — and how communities can act to change that story. Journalists can reach Layland by clicking on his profile.
Augusta University named NIH Specialized Center of Research Excellence on Sex Differences
Jennifer C. Sullivan, PhD, dean of The Graduate School at Augusta University, has dedicated her research to better understand why blood pressure increases in hypertension and raising awareness to the dangers of not paying attention to heart health, particularly among women. Throughout her career, Sullivan has been continuously funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Heart Association since becoming a tenure-track faculty member in 2008, and now she has a chance to take her research further after securing a five-year, $7.5 million grant to have Augusta University designated as a Specialized Center of Research Excellence on Sex Differences (SCORE) by the NIH’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. It’s a distinction that places AU among 10 other leaders in research for the field, including Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Emory University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, the Mayo Clinic, the Medical University of South Carolina, the University of Colorado and Yale University. The University of California, Los Angeles has two SCORE programs. “I’m so proud and excited for this opportunity because this has been what I have focused my research program on for my entire career, and to be able to advance it with a program like this, where we can actually build a unique program focused on an area that can make a difference, is just so much fun,” Sullivan said. “Just the fact that Augusta will be included on this list, attached to an organization of the caliber of NIH, will provide opportunities that we’ve never had before, especially for our students and younger researchers.” Sullivan’s SCORE project, “Improving awareness of women with hypertension: ROAR (Rural, Obese, At Risk),” focuses primarily on the fact that, while young women are considered “protected” from hypertension and the associated cardiovascular risk relative to age-matched men, the elimination of hypertension is projected to have a larger impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in women. “The group of people with the highest risk of death from hypertension is in the rural South of the U.S., specifically Black women are particularly vulnerable to developing hypertension and CVD,” Sullivan said. According to Sullivan’s research and information available from the American Heart Association (AHA), approximately 19 million deaths were attributed to CVD globally in 2020, an increase of about 20% from 2010. Both Sullivan and the AHA state that cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States, and that hypertension is a major modifiable risk factor for CVD. Sullivan said, “It has been suggested that eliminating hypertension would reduce CVD mortality by over 30% in men and 38% in women, but a critical barrier to limiting premature death from CVD is lack of awareness surrounding the risks of CVD. Our overall goal in this new funded project is to transform academic and community understanding of sex as a biological variable in the consideration of hypertension.” The three research projects include Sullivan’s lead project on high fat diets, a project on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disproportionately affects young women led by Erin Taylor, PhD, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, and another project looking at the role of inflammation and how immune cells are activated in SLE led by Michael Ryan, PhD, at the University of South Carlina’s School of Medicine. But there is more to SCORE than just conducting research. Each SCORE team is also responsible for a career enhancement core and a leadership administrative core. “What really sets these grants apart are the emphasis on the career enhancement and leadership administrative cores. The Career Enhancement Core is designed to be a bit open ended for each SCORE, but in talking to the NIH, what they were most excited about in our project is the community outreach piece we designed. “Our grant includes people across the entire campus, including Augusta University’s Medical College of Georgia, the College of Allied Health Sciences, the College of Education and Human Development and multiple campus partners including some of our sororities on campus and the Center for Writing Excellence,” Sullivan said. “More specifically, the COEHD is able to extend our outreach efforts to our local schools to begin educating children on the importance of screening, and our sororities are obviously connected with other chapters across the southeast which helps us spread our message, as well.” Sullivan notes that, through this portion of the project alone, there will be numerous opportunities to include students from Augusta University’s CAHS, College of Nursing, Department of Kinesiology, the Biomedical Sciences PhD program and the proposed School of Public Health. Marlo Vernon, PhD, associate professor at MCG and researcher for the Georgia Cancer Center, and Amanda Behr, chair of the Medical Illustration Program in CAHS, are also involved in various stages of the project. “The other thing the Career Enhancement Core will do is provide pilot grants to three research projects each year for early-stage investigators. We’ll also be able to fund sabbaticals for graduate students or postdocs to go someplace else and learn cutting edge techniques from other experts, so there is a lot built in that will help us support up-and-coming researchers,” Sullivan said. “We’re now part of this consortium, and they have a once-a-year, in-person meeting at the NIH offices, so we’ll go to that for the first time this year, and what’s neat about it is they’re really promoting young investigators. Each grant can bring up to eight people, the our hope is that we will have the investigators funded by the pilot projects attend next year, giving those folks the opportunity to present and talk to program officers with the NIH and develop a pipeline of investigators committed to studying women’s health and sex as a biological variable.” Sullivan is also looking to designate some of her summer graduate and undergraduate research positions to the project beginning next summer. “The Graduate School already has a summer program to support undergraduates that we will be able to piggyback off of. We have set aside five slots in that program for this that will go to students studying the sex as a biological variable, and the applications for that program, STAR, is already open,” Sullivan said. “We’re also planning a symposium in collaboration with the Physiology Department in April 2024. This is an annual event sponsored by the department, and this year they selected sex differences as the topic, so we are hoping to help increase exposure and attendance.” Looking to know more about the amazing research happening at Augusta? To connect with Jennifer Sullivan, simply click on her icon ow to arrange an interview today.
