Public Health in the Rockies 2026

Across the US, 7.4 million children are exposed to wildfire smoke annually. Children are one of the most susceptible populations to the health effects of air pollution, seen in changes in lung function, lung development, and existing respiratory disease exacerbation. Recent evidence also shows the mental health effects of wildfire smoke exposure, with children exhibiting symptoms of depression, anxiety, and other “internalizing symptoms” up to one year after exposure. School programs have been effective in implementing interventions to address obesity, suicide, sexual health, and other public health concerns. As exposure to air pollution in home environments can vary greatly between children, schools are a common ground among youth to reduce exposure to both wildfire smoke and other airborne pollutants. We partnered with five high schools in Colorado to implement a Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) project where youth learn about air quality, collect and analyze air quality data, and create and implement interventions to better prepare and protect their school community from exposure to airborne pollutants. YPAR is a youth-led, adult-guided approach to involving youth in research projects from start to finish, allowing youth to voice their experiences, develop research skills, and be agents of change. In this presentation, we will cover our approach and lessons learned from the first three years of the project, and discuss emergent themes from interviews with teachers and administrators engaged in our project. Our preliminary results revealed that teachers were enthusiastic about their students learning about air quality through this project, but were concerned about engagement and commitment, as the students who typically get involved are high achievers with several other commitments on their plates. To address these concerns, we will discuss strategies to increase student engagement through project-based learning and student incentives (i.e., Seal of Climate Literacy).

This session will describe CDPHE's Environmental Equity and Cumulative Impacts Analysis work, including a pilot research study underway in the East Colfax neighborhood of Aurora. The presenter will discuss the study methodology, how it will offer a novel understanding of the effects of multiple environmental exposures, and the intended public health benefits to residents of the community. More broadly, the presenter will describe how this pilot can inform an understanding of cumulative impacts across the state and subsequently guide policy. The session will include an overview of a variety of resources under development to support local cumulative impacts work. Participants will have the opportunity to reflect on how this work is applicable in their community and explore available data.

Background: The Trailhead Institute is a Public Health Institute and partners extensively with community-based organizations (CBOs). Community-driven solutions involve approaches that are led, informed, and sustained by the communities they aim to serve. This approach prioritizes local knowledge and equitable partnerships. These solutions take different forms and necessitate support from behind or beside the people advancing the work. CBOs are essential, on-the-ground, trusted partners in public health, yet they often lack the resources or support to provide these important services.

Methods: This session provides capacity-supporting organizations such as Trailhead Institute, local governments, and funders with examples of structural and administrative support to help CBOs be rooted and stable resources for their communities. Administrative and capacity-building services are highly necessary for the health of an organization and yet often undervalued. This has led many individuals, unincorporated collectives, 501c3, and even LLCs to seek fiscal sponsorship for their philanthropic endeavors. In its 32 years of existence, Trailhead has fiscally sponsored over 85 different projects through four of the six fiscal sponsorship models. Investing in trusted, values-aligned partnerships sustains incredible, innovative work that can transform public health.

Results: Providing organizational support has a multiplier effect that allows public health to have a greater reach, while recognizing the need to adjust our work so we can walk alongside communities rather than driving a rigid model. A relationship-focused, fiscally sound, and constructively critical approach creates mutually beneficial growth and success.

Implications: The session will show how working with unlikely partnerships that are aligned in mission and values leads to a multi-tiered approach for public health to achieve its goals. Once attendees understand the "why and how" of our approach, we will also share how we are advancing our work beyond our partnerships to provide technical assistance to other nonprofits.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming healthcare systems, communications, education, social services, and public health infrastructure. Yet, many public health professionals have received little training on how to ethically evaluate, responsibly use, or critically respond to AI tools that increasingly shape community health outcomes, public trust, and access to information. As AI becomes more integrated into public-facing systems, public health professionals need practical skills to navigate emerging ethical challenges while maintaining equity-centered, trauma-informed practices.

This interactive skill-building session introduces participants to a practical framework for trauma-informed AI ethics in public health practice. The training will explore real-world applications of AI in communications, program development, data analysis, healthcare access, education, and community engagement. Participants will examine key ethical concerns including algorithmic bias, misinformation, digital inequities, privacy concerns, accessibility barriers, and the disproportionate impacts AI systems can have on strategically undervalued communities.

The session emphasizes practical application rather than technical expertise. Participants will learn to critically assess AI-generated information, identify harms and biases, apply equity-centered decision-making frameworks, and develop safer communication practices when using AI tools in public health settings. The training will also provide guidance for strengthening public trust and maintaining human-centered approaches in increasingly digital environments.

Beyond understanding the ethical implications of AI, participants will be guided through a structured process to develop their own AI ethics framework. Through reflection and facilitated exercises, attendees will identify their values, define boundaries around AI use, establish criteria for when AI should and should not be used, and begin drafting ethical guidelines that can inform organizational policies and decision-making. Participants will leave with greater confidence in evaluating AI tools and a foundation for responsible AI governance within their workplaces and communities.

Instructional methodologies will include interactive discussion, case-study analysis, guided reflection, scenario-based learning, and individual framework development. Participants will engage with public health scenarios involving AI-generated messaging, ethical dilemmas, and community trust challenges.

Skill development will be measured through participant engagement in scenario analysis, application of ethical evaluation frameworks during group activities, and completion of a personalized AI ethics framework that demonstrates their ability to identify risks, apply trauma-informed principles, articulate values-based boundaries, and propose ethical public health responses. Participants will leave with practical tools, discussion frameworks, and a customizable ethics guide they can immediately apply within their organizations and communities.

This session supports best practices in public health by centering health equity, cultural humility, accessibility, ethical communication, and community trust. It aligns with Colorado’s Foundational Public Health Capabilities, including Health Equity and the Social Determinants of Health, Organizational Competencies, Communications, and Policy Development & Support. The training is especially relevant as public health professionals increasingly encounter AI technologies without sufficient ethical guidance, policy frameworks, or workforce preparation.

By fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and collaborative learning around emerging technologies, this session directly supports the conference theme, Stronger Together: Public Health in the Heart of the Rockies. It encourages participants to collectively build responsible, equitable, and community-centered approaches to AI that strengthen public health systems while protecting human dignity, trust, and accountability.

Background: Timely access to psychiatric support remains limited for primary care clinicians in rural and underserved communities, yet many available resources like provider-to-provider consultation programs remain underutilized. To address underutilization and integrate such programs with workforce training, we developed a data-guided educational model using psychiatry consultation patterns.

Methods: Requests were reviewed from two psychiatry consultation programs at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine: eConsults, an asynchronous, EHR-based service, and Effective Access and Support from Psychiatry (EASY), a phone-based service. Submissions (97 EASY; 2,136 eConsults) were reviewed to identify diagnoses, submission characteristics, and clinical questions, informing the development of an Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) curriculum for primary care clinicians. ECHO sessions included case-based discussions and peer exchange, promoting application and reflection while aligning with practice-based instructional design theory. Post-series evaluations assessed learning, confidence, and intended use of consultation pathways.

Results: Thirty-three individuals participated; nine completed a post-series evaluation. Most participants were direct care providers (85%) and served Medicaid patients (73%); one-third worked in Colorado’s rural or frontier counties (32%). All respondents reported increased understanding of how and when to submit consultation requests. Seventy-eight percent intended to use eConsults and 89% intended to use EASY within six months. Self-reported high confidence using psychiatry access programs increased from 11% pre- to 44% post-series. In open-ended responses, most respondents planned to submit higher-quality consultations or use consultation pathways more frequently.

Implications: This consultation-training feedback loop offers a practical strategy for strengthening community psychiatric care. By converting consultation experience into training, the model improved clinicians’ understanding, confidence, and intended use of access supports. For communities with limited access to psychiatric specialists, this approach may reduce reliance on referrals which require travel, delay care, or impose high costs. The model is adaptable to other specialties seeking to align consultation and access-focused practice.