Ongoing outbreaks of measles threaten its elimination status in the United States. Its resurgence points to lower parental vaccine confidence and local pockets of unvaccinated and undervaccinated individuals. The geographic clustering of hesitancy to MMR indicates the presence of social drivers that shape parental perceptions and decisions on immunization. Through a qualitative systematic review of published literature (n = 115 articles; 7 databases), we determined major themes regarding parental reasons for MMR vaccine hesitancy, social context of MMR vaccine hesitancy, and trustworthy vaccine information sources. Fear of autism was the most cited reason for MMR hesitancy. The social drivers of vaccine hesitancy included primary care/healthcare, education, economy, and government/policy factors. Social factors, such as income and education, exerted a bidirectional influence, which facilitated or hindered vaccine compliance depending on how the social determinant was experienced. Fear of autism was the most cited reason for MMR hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy to MMR and other childhood vaccines clustered in middle- to high-income areas among mothers with a college-level education or higher who preferred internet/social media narratives over physician-based vaccine information. They had low parental trust, low perceived disease susceptibility, and were skeptical of vaccine safety and benefits. Combating MMR vaccine misinformation and hesitancy requires intersectoral and multifaceted approaches at various socioecological levels to address the social drivers of vaccine behavior.

The family, as a setting of practice, is increasingly recognized as critical to health promotion. A better understanding of the nature and process through which families take an active part in their own health can serve as the basis for designing and linking health interventions with public health programs. The integrating function of the family, viewed through an ecological context, makes it an effective entry point and central focus in health promotion.

Despite the substantial health and economic burdens posed by the social determinants of health (SDH), these have yet to be efficiently, sufficiently, and sustainably addressed in clinical settings—medical offices, hospitals, and healthcare systems. Our study contextualized SDH application strategies in U.S. clinical settings by exploring the reasons for integration and identifying target patients/conditions, barriers, and recommendations for clinical translation. The foremost reason for integrating SDH in clinical settings was to identify unmet social needs and link patients to community resources, particularly for vulnerable and complex care populations. This was mainly carried out through SDH screening during patient intake to collect individual-level SDH data within the context of chronic medical, mental health, or behavioral conditions. Challenges and opportunities for integration occurred at the educational, practice, and administrative/institutional levels. Gaps remain in incorporating SDH in patient workflows and EHRs for making clinical decisions and predicting health outcomes. Current strategies are largely directed at moderating individual-level social needs versus addressing community-level root causes of health inequities. Obtaining policy, funding, administrative and staff support for integration, applying a systems approach through interprofessional/intersectoral partnerships, and delivering SDH-centered medical school curricula and training are vital in helping individuals and communities achieve their best possible health.

Healthcare workers are highly regarded for their compassion, dedication, and composure. However, COVID-19 created unprecedented demands that rendered healthcare workers vulnerable to increased burnout, anxiety, and depression. This cross-sectional study assessed the psychosocial impact of COVID-19 on U.S. healthcare frontliners using a 38-item online survey administered by Reaction Data between September and December 2020. The survey included five validated scales to assess self-reported burnout (Maslach Summative Burnout Scale), anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-2), resilience (Brief Resilience Coping Scale), and self-efficacy (New Self-Efficacy Scale-8). We used regression to assess the relationships between demographic variables and the psychosocial scales index scores and found that COVID-19 amplified preexisting burnout (54.8%), anxiety (138.5%), and depression (166.7%), and reduced resilience (5.70%) and self-efficacy (6.5%) among 557 respondents (52.6% male, 47.5% female). High patient volume, extended work hours, staff shortages, and lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and resources fueled burnout, anxiety, and depression. Respondents were anxious about the indefinite duration of the pandemic/uncertain return to normal (54.8%), were anxious of infecting family (48.3%), and felt conflicted about protecting themselves versus fulfilling their duty to patients (44.3%). Respondents derived strength from their capacity to perform well in tough times (74.15%), emotional support from family/friends (67.2%), and time off work (62.8%). Strategies to promote emotional well-being and job satisfaction can focus on multilevel resilience, safety, and social connectedness.

Trauma-informed care (TIC) is a comprehensive approach that focuses on the whole individual. It acknowledges the experiences and symptoms of trauma and their impact on health. TIC prioritizes physical and emotional safety through a relationship of trust that supports patient choice and empowerment. It provides a safe and respectful healing environment that considers specific needs while promoting a greater sense of well-being, patient engagement, and partnership in the treatment process. Given the prevalence of trauma, this descriptive cross-sectional study examined the attitudes and perspectives of U.S. physicians (N = 179; 67% males; 84% White; 43% aged 56–65) in providing trauma-informed care using an anonymous 29-item online survey administered by Reaction Data. Findings showed that 16% (n = 18) of physicians estimated that >50% of their patients have a history of trauma. Commonly perceived barriers to providing TIC were resource/time/administrative constraints, provider stress, limited awareness of the right provider to refer patients who experienced trauma, and inadequate TIC emphasis in medical education/training. Expanding physicians’ knowledge base of trauma through training and organizational policy/support is crucial in enhancing their TIC competence, particularly in caring for patients with complex care needs whose social determinants increase their risk of exposure to adverse experiences that carry lasting physical and psychological effects.