Annual Review of Public Health最新文献

Between the 2009 Great Recession and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the US state and local governmental public health workforce lost 40,000 jobs. Tens of thousands of workers also left during the pandemic and continue to leave. As governmental health departments are now receiving multimillion-dollar, temporary federal investments to replenish their workforce, this review synthesizes the evidence regarding major challenges that preceded the pandemic and remain now. These include the lack of the field's ability to readily enumerate and define the governmental public health workforce as well as challenges with the recruitment and retention of public health workers. This review finds that many workforce-related challenges identified more than 20 years ago persist in the field today. Thus, it is critical that we look back to be able to then move forward to successfully rebuild the workforce and assure adequate capacity to protect the public's health and respond to public health emergencies.

Community health workers (CHWs) have worked in a variety of settings in the United States for more than 70 years and are increasingly recognized as an essential health workforce. CHWs share life experience with the people they serve and have firsthand knowledge of the causes and impacts of health inequity. They provide a critical link between marginalized communities and health care and public health services. Several studies have demonstrated that CHWs can improve the management of chronic conditions, increase access to preventive care, improve patients' experience of care, and reduce health care costs. CHWs can also advance health equity by addressing social needs and advocating for systems and policy change. This review provides a history of CHW integration with health care in the United States; describes evidence of the impact of CHW programs on population health, experience, costs of care, and health equity; and identifies considerations for CHW program expansion.

Public health researchers are increasingly questioning the consequences of gentrification for population health and health equity, as witnessed in the rapid increase in public health publications on the health (equity) effects of gentrification. Despite methodological challenges, and mixed results from existing quantitative research, qualitative evidence to date points to the role of gentrification processes in exacerbating health inequities. Here we discuss past methodological and theoretical challenges in integrating the study of gentrification with public health research. We suggest taking an interdisciplinary approach, considering the conceptualization of gentrification in measurement techniques and conceiving this process as a direct exposure or as a part of broader neighborhood changes. Finally, we discuss existingpolicy approaches to mitigating and preventing gentrification and how these could be evaluated for effectiveness and as public health promotion and specifically as interventions to promote health equity.

Rapid randomized controlled trials have been surprisingly rare in health care quality improvement (QI) and systems interventions. Applying clinical trials methodology QI work brings two distinct fields together, applying the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to the practical, operational learnings of the well-established QI field. Rapid trials also add a third element-speed-that enables health care systems to rapidly test multiple variations of an intervention in much the same way that A/B testing is done in the technology sector. When performed well, these rapid trials free researchers and health care systems from the requirement to be correct the first time (because it is low cost and quick to try something else) while offering a standard of evidence often absent in QI. Here we outline the historical underpinnings of this approach, provide guidance about how best to implement it, and describe lessons learned from running more than 20 randomized projects in the NYU Langone Health system.

Mass incarceration is a sociostructural driver of profound health inequalities in the United States. The political and economic forces underpinning mass incarceration are deeply rooted in centuries of the enslavement of people of African descent and the genocide and displacement of Indigenous people and is inextricably connected to labor exploitation, racial discrimination, the criminalization of immigration, and behavioral health problems such as mental illness and substance use disorders. This article focuses on major public health crises and advances in state and federal prisons and discusses a range of practical strategies for health scholars, practitioners, and activists to promote the health and dignity of incarcerated people. It begins by summarizing the historical and sociostructural factors that have led to mass incarceration in the United States. It then describes the ways in which prison conditions create or worsen chronic, communicable, and behavioral health conditions, while highlighting priority areas for public health research and intervention to improve the health of incarcerated people, including decarceral solutions that can profoundly minimize-and perhaps one day help abolish-the use of prisons.

Meta-analyses contribute critically to cumulative science, but they can produce misleading conclusions if their constituent primary studies are biased, for example by unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies. We provide practical guidance on how meta-analysts can address confounding and other biases that affect studies' internal validity, focusing primarily on sensitivity analyses that help quantify how biased the meta-analysis estimates might be. We review a number of sensitivity analysis methods to do so, especially recent developments that are straightforward to implement and interpret and that use somewhat less stringent statistical assumptions than do earlier methods. We give recommendations for how these newer methods could be applied in practice and illustrate using a previously published meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses can provide informative quantitative summaries of evidence strength, and we suggest reporting them routinely in meta-analyses of potentially biased studies. This recommendation in no way diminishes the importance of defining study eligibility criteria that reduce bias and of characterizing studies' risks of bias qualitatively.

The shared challenges posed by the production and distribution of health-harming products have led to growing recognition of the need for policy learning and transfer across problems, populations, and social contexts. The commercial determinants of health (CDoH) can serve as a unifying concept to describe the population health consequences arising from for-profit actors and activities, along with the social structures that sustain them. Strategies to mitigate harms from CDoH have focused on behavioral change, regulation, fiscal policies, consumer and citizen activism, and litigation. While there is evidence of effective measures for each strategy, approaches that combine strategies are generally more impactful. Filling gaps in evidence can inform ways of adapting these strategies to specific populations and social contexts. Overall, CDoH are addressed most effectively not through siloed efforts to reduce consumption of health-harming products, but instead as a set of integrated strategies to reduce exposures to health-harming commercial actors and activities.

Mobile health applications (apps) have transformed the possibilities for health promotion and disease self-management; however, their promise is not fully realized owing to their reliance on commercial ecosystems for development and distribution. This review provides an overview of the types of mobile health apps and describes key stakeholders in terms of how apps are used, developed, and regulated. I outline key challenges facing consumers, public health professionals, and policy makers in evaluating the quality of health apps and summarize what is known about the impact of apps on health outcomes and health equity. I suggest that factors within the wider mobile ecosystem largely define the impact of health apps and, most notably, practices around the collection and commercialization of user data. Finally, I suggest that upstream public health strategies, grounded in an understanding of corporate influences on health, are necessary to promote healthy digital environments in which mobile health app innovation can flourish.

Over the past several decades, cities worldwide have attempted to reconfigure their food systems to improve public health, advance social justice, and promote environmental resilience using diverse municipal policies, often with the support of stakeholder-led governance mechanisms such as food policy councils. This article reviews the roles that cities have played in creating healthful urban food systems and the effects of those policies on public health. It explains that despite wide-ranging policy initiatives, disparities in food insecurity and malnourishment persist. It concludes by describing several promising pathways for urban food policy: engaging in food-focused urban planning to create equitable food environments; treating policies to address inequality and social justice as upstream food policies; considering the effects of new business models such as online food retail in urban food policy making; and using food procurement as a lever to influence regional, national, and global food systems.

Rural health disparities have attracted increased national attention, compelling an expanded focus on rural health research. In this article, we deconstruct the definitions and narratives of "rural" communities and suggest that a paradigm shift is needed that centers the complexity and strength of rural places. We discuss the relevance of health equity frameworks, implementation science, and community-engaged approaches to promote rural well-being. Focusing on rural in its own right will lead to intervention innovations and reinvention with implications beyond rural areas. We conclude with suggestions for research and practice to inspire renewed interest in partnering with rural communities to promote health equity.