Social determinants of health (SDHs) exert a significant influence on various health outcomes and disparities. This study aimed to explore the associations between combined SDHs and mortality, as well as adverse health outcomes among adults with depression.

The research included 48,897 participants with depression from the UK Biobank and 7,771 from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). By calculating combined SDH scores based on 14 SDHs in the UK Biobank and 9 in the US NHANES, participants were categorized into favourable, medium and unfavourable SDH groups through tertiles. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the impact of combined SDHs on mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular disease [CVD] and cancer) in both cohorts, as well as incidences of CVD, cancer and dementia in the UK Biobank.

In the fully adjusted models, compared to the favourable SDH group, the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 1.81 (95% CI: 1.60–2.04) in the unfavourable SDH group in the UK Biobank cohort; 1.61 (95% CI: 1.31–1.98) in the medium SDH group and 2.19 (95% CI: 1.78–2.68) in the unfavourable SDH group in the US NHANES cohort. Moreover, higher levels of unfavourable SDHs were associated with increased mortality risk from CVD and cancer. Regarding disease incidence, they were significantly linked to higher incidences of CVD and dementia but not cancer in the UK Biobank.

Combined unfavourable SDHs were associated with elevated risks of mortality and adverse health outcomes among adults with depression, which suggested that assessing the combined impact of SDHs could serve as a key strategy in preventing and managing depression, ultimately helping to reduce the burden of disease.

The macro-social and environmental conditions in which people live, such as the level of a country’s development or inequality, are associated with brain-related disorders. However, the relationship between these systemic environmental factors and the brain remains unclear. We aimed to determine the association between the level of development and inequality of a country and the brain structure of healthy adults.

We conducted a cross-sectional study pooling brain imaging (T1-based) data from 145 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies in 7,962 healthy adults (4,110 women) in 29 different countries. We used a meta-regression approach to relate the brain structure to the country’s level of development and inequality.

Higher human development was consistently associated with larger hippocampi and more expanded global cortical surface area, particularly in frontal areas. Increased inequality was most consistently associated with smaller hippocampal volume and thinner cortical thickness across the brain.

Our results suggest that the macro-economic conditions of a country are reflected in its inhabitants’ brains and may explain the different incidence of brain disorders across the world. The observed variability of brain structure in health across countries should be considered when developing tools in the field of personalized or precision medicine that are intended to be used across the world.

The Child Opportunity Index is an index of 29 indicators of social determinants of health linked to the United States of America Census. Disparities in the treatment of Wolff–Parkinson–White have not be reported. We hypothesise that lower Child Opportunity Index levels are associated with greater disease burden (antiarrhythmic use, ablation success, and Wolff–Parkinson–White recurrence) and ablation utilisation.

A retrospective, single-centre study was performed with Wolff–Parkinson–White patients who received care from January 2021 to July 2023. Following exclusion for <5 years old and with haemodynamically significant CHD, 267 patients were included (45% high, 30% moderate, and 25% low Child Opportunity Index). Multi-level logistic and log-linear regression was performed to assess the relationship between Child Opportunity Index levels and outcomes.

Low patients were more likely to be Black (p < 0.0001) and to have public insurance (p = 0.0006), though, there were no significant differences in ablation utilisation (p = 0.44) or time from diagnosis to ablation (p = 0.37) between groups. There was an inverse relationship with emergency department use (p = 0.007). The low group had 2.8 times greater odds of having one or more emergency department visits compared to the high group (p = 0.004).

The Child Opportunity Index was not related with ablation utilisation, while there was an inverse relationship in emergency department use. These findings suggest that while social determinants of health, as measured by Child Opportunity Index, may influence emergency department utilisation, they do not appear to impact the overall management and procedural timing for Wolff–Parkinson–White treatment.

Decentralized research has many advantages; however, little is known about the representativeness of a source population in decentralized studies. We recruited participants aged 18-64 years from four states from June to December 2022 for a prospective cohort study to assess viral epidemiology. Our aim was to determine the association between age, gender, race/ethnicity, rurality, and socioeconomic status (SES) on study participation in a decentralized prospective cohort study.

We consented 9,286 participants from 231,099 (4.0%) adults with the mean age of 45.6 years (±12.0). We used an electronic decentralized approach for recruitment. Consented participants were more likely to be non-Hispanic White, female, older, urban residents, have more health conditions, and possessed higher socioeconomic status (SES) compared to those non-consented.

We observed an interaction between SES and race-ethnicity on the odds of consent (P = 0.006). Specifically, SES did not affect non-Hispanic white participation rates(OR 1.24 95% CI 1.16 – 1.32] for the highest SES quartile compared to those with the lowest SES quartile) as much as it did participants combined across the other races (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.45 – 2.98])

The relationship between SES and consent rates might be disproportionately greater in historically disadvantaged groups, compared to non-Hispanic White. It suggests that instead of focusing on enrollment of specific minority groups in research, there is value in future research exploring and addressing the diversity of barriers to trials within minority groups. Our study highlights that decentralized studies need to address social determinants of health, especially in under-resourced populations.

This study aims to identify fathers’ profiles integrating food parenting practices (FPP) and physical activity parenting practices (PAPP).

We analysed cross-sectional data. The fathers completed the reduced FPP and PAPP item banks and socio-demographic and family dynamics (co-parenting and household responsibility) questionnaires. We identified fathers’ profiles via latent profile analysis. We explored the influence of social determinants, child characteristics and family dynamics on fathers’ profiles using multinomial logistic regression.

Online survey in the USA.

Fathers of 5–11-year-old children.

We analysed data from 606 fathers (age = 38 ± 8·0; Hispanic = 37·5 %). Most fathers self-identified as White (57·9 %) or Black/African American (17·7 %), overweight (41·1 %) or obese (34·8 %); attended college (70 %); earned > $47 000 (62·7 %); worked 40 hrs/week (63·4 %) and were biological fathers (90·1 %). Most children (boys = 55·5 %) were 5–8 years old (65·2 %). We identified five fathers’ profiles combining FPP and PAPP: (1) Engaged Supporter Father (n 94 (15·5 %)); (2) Leveled Father (n 160 (26·4 %)); (3) Autonomy-Focused Father (n 117 (19·3 %)); (4) Uninvolved Father (n 113 (18·6 %)) and (5) Control-Focused Father (n 122 (20·1 %)). We observed significant associations with race, ethnicity, child characteristics, co-parenting and household responsibility but not with education level, annual income or employment status. We observed significant pairwise differences between profiles in co-parenting and household responsibility, with the Engaged Supporter Father presenting higher scores in both measures.

Understanding how fathers’ FPP and PAPP interact can enhance assessments for a comprehensive understanding of fathers’ influences on children’s health. Recognising the characteristics and differences among fathers’ profiles may enable tailored interventions, potentially improving children’s health trajectories.

This study aimed to describe medical students’ perceptions and experiences with health policy and advocacy training and practice and define motivations and barriers for engagement.

This was a mixed-methods study of medical students from May to October 2022. Students were invited to participate in a web-based survey and optional follow-up phone interview. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Phone interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and de-identified. Interviews were coded inductively using a coding dictionary. Themes were identified using thematic analysis.

35/580 survey responses (6% response rate) and 15 interviews were completed. 100% rated social factors as related to overall health. 65.7% of participants felt “very confident” or “extremely confident” in identifying social needs but only 11.4% felt “very confident” in addressing these needs. From interviews, six themes were identified: (1) participants recognized that involvement in health policy and/or advocacy is a duty of physicians; (2) participants acknowledged physicians’ voices as well respected; (3) participants were comfortable identifying social determinants of health but felt unprepared to address needs; (4) barriers to future involvement included intimidation, self-doubt, and skepticism of impact; (5) past exposures and awareness of advocacy topics motivated participants to engage in health policy and/or advocacy during medical school; and (6) participants identified areas where the training on these topics excelled and offered recommendations for improvement, including simulation, earlier integration, and teaching on health-related laws and policies.

This study highlights the importance of involvement in health policy and advocacy among medical students and the need for enhanced education and exposure.

In recent years, there has been a growth in awareness of the importance of equity and community engagement in clinical and translational research. One key limitation of most training programs is that they focus on change at the individual level. While this is important, such an approach is not sufficient to address systemic inequities built into the norms of clinical and translational research. Therefore, it is necessary to provide training that addresses changing scientific norms and culture to ensure inclusivity and health equity in translational research.

We developed, implemented, and assessed a training course that addressed how research norms are based on histories and legacies of white supremacy, colonialism, and patriarchy, ultimately leading to unintentional exclusionary and biased practices in research. Additionally, the course provides resources for trainees to build skills in how to redress this issue and improve the quality and impact of clinical and translational research. In 2022 and 2023, the course was offered to cohorts of pre and postdoctoral scholars in clinical and translational research at a premier health research Institution.

The efficacy and immediate impact of three training modules, based on community engagement, racial diversity in clinical trials, and cancer clusters, were evaluated with data from both participant feedback and assessment from the authors. TL1 scholars indicated increased new knowledge in the field and described potential future actions to integrate community voices in their own research program.

Results indicate that trainings offered new perspectives and knowledge to the scholars.