Annual Review of Public Health最新文献

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.

By 2050, 20% of the world's population will be over the age of 65 years, with projections that 80% of older adults will be living in low- to middle-income countries. Physical inactivity and sedentary time are particularly high in older adults, presenting unique public health challenges. In this article, we first review evidence that points to multiple beneficial outcomes of active aging, including better physical function, cognitive function, mental health, social health, and sleep, and we suggest the need to shift the research focus from chronic disease outcomes to more relevantoutcomes that affect independence and quality of life. Second, we review the critical role of age-friendly environments in facilitating active aging equitably across different countries and cultures. Finally, we consider emerging opportunities related to social engagement and technology-enabled mobility that can facilitate active aging. In all these contexts, it is a priority to understand and address diversity within the global aging population.

This article reflects on current trends and proposes new considerations for the future of mobile technologies for health (mHealth). Our focus is predominantly on the value of and concerns with regard to the application of digital health within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It is in LMICs and marginalized communities that mHealth (within the wider scope of digital health) could be most useful and valuable. Peer-reviewed literature on mHealth in LMICs provides reassurance of this potential, often reflecting on the ubiquity of mobile phones and ever-increasing connectivity globally, reaching remote or otherwise disengaged populations. Efforts to adapt successful programs for LMIC contexts and populations are only just starting to reap rewards. Private-sector investment in mHealth offers value through enhanced capacity and advances in technology as well as the ability to meet increasing consumer demand for real-time, accessible, convenient, and choice-driven health care options. We examine some of the potential considerations associated with a private-sector investment, questioning whether a core of transparency, local ownership, equity, and safety is likely to be upheld in the current environment of health entrepreneurship.

Advancing the science of intervention scale-up is essential to increasing the impact of effective interventions at the regional and national levels. In contrast with work in high-income countries (HICs), where scale-up research has been limited, researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have conducted numerous studies on the regional and national scale-up of interventions. In this article, we review the state of the science on intervention scale-up in both HICs and LMICs. We provide an introduction to the elements of scale-up followed by a description of the scale-up process, with an illustrative case study from our own research. We then present findings from a scoping review comparing scale-up studies in LMIC and HIC settings. We conclude with lessons learned and recommendations for improving scale-up research.

Designing for dissemination and sustainability (D4DS) refers to principles and methods for enhancing the fit between a health program, policy, or practice and the context in which it is intended to be adopted. In this article we first summarize the historical context of D4DS and justify the need to shift traditional health research and dissemination practices. We present a diverse literature according to a D4DS organizing schema and describe a variety of dissemination products, design processes and outcomes, and approaches to messaging, packaging, and distribution. D4DS design processes include stakeholder engagement, participatory codesign, and context and situation analysis, and leverage methods and frameworks from dissemination and implementation science, marketing and business, communications and visualarts, and systems science. Finally, we present eight recommendations to adopt a D4DS paradigm, reflecting shifts in ways of thinking, skills and approaches, and infrastructure and systems for training and evaluation.

Emerging evidence supports a link between environmental factors-including air pollution and chemical exposures, climate, and the built environment-and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) susceptibility and severity. Climate, air pollution, and the built environment have long been recognized to influence viral respiratory infections, and studies have established similar associations with COVID-19 outcomes. More limited evidence links chemical exposures to COVID-19. Environmental factors were found to influence COVID-19 through four major interlinking mechanisms: increased risk of preexisting conditions associated with disease severity; immune system impairment; viral survival and transport; and behaviors that increase viral exposure. Both data and methodologic issues complicate the investigation of these relationships, including reliance on coarse COVID-19 surveillance data; gaps in mechanistic studies; and the predominance of ecological designs. We evaluate the strength of evidence for environment-COVID-19 relationships and discuss environmental actions that might simultaneously address the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental determinants of health, and health disparities.

The big data revolution presents an exciting frontier to expand public health research, broadening the scope of research and increasing the precision of answers. Despite these advances, scientists must be vigilant against also advancing potential harms toward marginalized communities. In this review, we provide examples in which big data applications have (unintentionally) perpetuated discriminatory practices, while also highlighting opportunities for big data applications to advance equity in public health. Here, big data is framed in the context of the five Vs (volume, velocity, veracity, variety, and value), and we propose a sixth V, virtuosity, which incorporates equity and justice frameworks. Analytic approaches to improving equity are presented using social computational big data, fairness in machine learning algorithms, medical claims data, and data augmentation as illustrations. Throughout, we emphasize the biasing influence of data absenteeism and positionality and conclude with recommendations for incorporating an equity lens into big data research.

Urban climate policy offers a significant opportunity to promote improved public health. The evidence around climate and health cobenefits is growing but has yet to translate into widespread integrated policies. This article presents two systematic reviews: first, looking at quantified cobenefits of urban climate policies, where transportation, land use, and buildings emerge as the most studied sectors; and second, looking at review papers exploring the barriers and enablers for integrating these health cobenefits into urban policies. The latter reveals wide agreement concerning the need to improve the evidence base for cobenefits and consensus about the need for greater political will and leadership on this issue. Systems thinking may offer a way forward to help embrace complexity and integrate health cobenefits into decision making. Knowledge coproduction to bring stakeholders together and advance policy-relevant research for urban health will also be required. Action is needed to bring these two important policy agendas together.