ArticleJournal of environmental health2026
Assessing Public Health Jurisdictional Use of the Model Aquatic Health Code From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: A Mixed-Methods Approach.
Article in Journal of environmental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides scientifically based recommendations that state, tribal, local, and territorial (STLT) public health partners can use to ensure healthy and safe experiences in public aquatic venues. Our study aimed to characterize MAHC use and implementation and identify facilitators and barriers to MAHC use across STLT jurisdictions. A mixed-methods approach was used, combining a web-based survey with virtual focus groups that included public health professionals from STLT health departments working on aquatic venue safety, regulation, and inspection. In total, 88 participants from 35 STLT health departments completed the survey that was distributed to 13,887 recipients via CDC-administered and nongovernmental listservs. In total, 47 (53%) respondents reported using the MAHC to justify existing code, 34 (39%) to provide guidance for sections not covered in their code, and 31 (35%) to grant code exceptions. Further, 13 (15%) respondents reported they frequently incorporate or have adopted the MAHC in full, and 34 (39%) reported they do not incorporate the MAHC but are considering incorporating the MAHC into code. Facilitators to MAHC use included the need for updated regulations, political will, and collaboration. Barriers included slow regulatory processes, resource constraints, and insufficient staff training. MAHC users indicated that an up-to-date MAHC provides flexibility for jurisdictions to adopt or reference it to best fit jurisdictional needs. Overall, MAHC use varies, and a multifactorial approach beyond code adoption might be needed to measure MAHC use. Moreover, implementation and adoption tracking support could improve MAHC use. Respondents generally agreed that the MAHC should be kept up-to-date, but that future update cycles could extend beyond every 3 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.