Annual Review of Public Health最新文献

Health care workers (HCWs) can acquire infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), from patients. Herein, COVID-19 is used with the source-pathway-receptor framework as an example to assess evidence for the roles of aerosol transmission and indirect contact transmission in viral respiratory infectious diseases. Evidence for both routes is strong for COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses, but aerosol transmission is likely dominant for COVID-19. Key knowledge gaps about transmission processes and control strategies include the distribution of viable virus among respiratory aerosols of different sizes, the mechanisms and efficiency by which virus deposited on the facial mucous membrane moves to infection sites inside the body, and the performance of source controls such as face coverings and aerosol containment devices. To ensure that HCWs are adequately protected from infection, guidelines and regulations must be updated to reflect the evidence that respiratory viruses are transmitted via aerosols.

In a context where epidemiologic research has been heavily influenced by a biomedical and individualistic approach, the naming of "social epidemiology" allowed explicit emphasis on the social production of disease as a powerful explanatory paradigm and as critically important for interventions to improve population health. This review briefly highlights key substantive areas of focus in social epidemiology over the past 30 years, reflects on major advances and insights, and identifies challenges and possible future directions. Future opportunities for social epidemiology include grounding research in theoretically based and systemic conceptual models of the fundamental social drivers of health; implementing a scientifically rigorous yet realistic approach to drawing conclusions about social causes; using complementary methods to generate valid explanations and identify effective actions; leveraging the power of harmonization, replication, and big data; extending interdisciplinarity and diversity; advancing emerging critical approaches to understanding the health impacts of systemic racism and its policy implications; going global; and embracing a broad approach to generating socially useful research.

Patient-reported outcomes are recognized as essential for the evaluation of medical and public health interventions. Over the last 50 years, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) research has grown exponentially from 0 to more than 17,000 papers published annually. We provide an overview of generic HRQoL measures used widely in epidemiological studies, health services research, population studies, and randomized clinical trials [e.g., Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®)-29]. In addition, we review methods used for economic analysis and calculation of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). These include the EQ-5D, the Health Utilities Index (HUI), the self-administered Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB-SA), and the Health and Activities Limitation Index (HALex). Furthermore, we consider hybrid measures such as the SF-6D and the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr). The plethora of HRQoL measures has impeded cumulative science because incomparable measures have been used in different studies. Linking among different measures and consensus on standard HRQoL measurement should now be prioritized. In addition, enabling widespread access to common measures is necessary to accelerate future progress.

Health care providers hold negative explicit and implicit biases against marginalized groups of people such as racial and ethnic minoritized populations. These biases permeate the health care system and affect patients via patient-clinician communication, clinical decision making, and institutionalized practices. Addressing bias remains a fundamental professional responsibility of those accountable for the health and wellness of our populations. Current interventions include instruction on the existence and harmful role of bias in perpetuating health disparities, as well as skills training for the management of bias. These interventions can raise awareness of provider bias and engage health care providers in establishing egalitarian goals for care delivery, but these changes are not sustained, and the interventions have not demonstrated change in behavior in the clinical or learning environment. Unfortunately, the efficacy of these interventions may be hampered by health care providers' work and learning environments, which are rife with discriminatory practices that sustain the very biases US health care professions are seeking to diminish. We offer a conceptual model demonstrating that provider-level implicit bias interventions should be accompanied by interventions that systemically change structures inside and outside the health care system if the country is to succeed in influencing biases and reducing health inequities.

The Indian Health Service (IHS) has made huge strides in narrowing health disparities between American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations and other racial and ethnic groups. Yet, health disparities experienced by AI/AN people persist, with deep historical roots combined with present-day challenges. Here we review the history of the IHS from colonization to the present-day system, highlight persistent disparities in AI/AN health and health care, and discuss six key present-day challenges: inadequate funding, limited human resources, challenges associated with transitioning services from federal to Tribal control through contracting and compacting, evolving federal and state programs, the need for culturally sensitive services, and the promise and challenges of health technology.

There is growing interest in and renewed support for prioritizing social factors in public health both in the USA and globally. While there are multiple widely recognized social determinants of health, indicators of social connectedness (e.g., social capital, social support, social isolation, loneliness) are often noticeably absent from the discourse. This article provides an organizing framework for conceptualizing social connection and summarizes the cumulative evidence supporting its relevance for health, including epidemiological associations, pathways, and biological mechanisms. This evidence points to several implications for prioritizing social connection within solutions across sectors, where public health work, initiatives, and research play a key role in addressing gaps. Therefore, this review proposes a systemic framework for cross-sector action to identify missed opportunities and guide future investigation, intervention, practice, and policy on promoting social connection and health for all.

While there are many definitions of citizen science, the term usually refers to the participation of the general public in the scientific process in collaboration with professional scientists. Citizen scientists have been engaged to promote health equity, especially in the areas of environmental contaminant exposures, physical activity, and healthy eating. Citizen scientists commonly come from communities experiencing health inequities and have collected data using a range of strategies and technologies, such as air sensors, water quality kits, and mobile applications. On the basis of our review, and to advance the field of citizen science to address health equity, we recommend (a) expanding the focus on topics important for health equity, (b) increasing the diversity of people serving as citizen scientists, (c) increasing the integration of citizen scientists in additional research phases, (d) continuing to leverage emerging technologies that enable citizen scientists to collect data relevant for health equity, and (e) strengthening the rigor of methods to evaluate impacts on health equity.

Vaccines prevent millions of deaths, and yet millions of people die each year from vaccine-preventable diseases. The primary reason for these deaths is that a significant fraction of the population chooses not to vaccinate. Why don't people vaccinate, and what can be done to increase vaccination rates besides providing free and easy access to vaccines? This review presents a conceptual framework, motivated by economic theory, of which factors shift the demand for vaccines. Next, it critically examines the literature on these demand shifters and interventions that target these demand shifters. The review concludes with offering directions for future research and lessons for public health decision making.