Social epidemiology is concerned with how social forces inf luence population health. Rather than focusing on a single disease (as in cancer or cardiovascular epidemiology) or a single type of exposure (e.g., nutritional epidemiology), social epidemiology encompasses all the social and economic determinants of health, both historical and contemporary. These include features of social and physical environments, the network of relationships in a society, and the institutions, politics, policies, norms and cultures that shape all of these forces. This commentary presents the perspective of several editors at the Journal with expertise in social epidemiology. We articulate our thinking to encourage submissions to the Journal that: 1) expand knowledge of emerging and underresearched social determinants of population health; 2) advance new empirical evidence on the determinants of health inequities and solutions to advance health equity; 3) generate evidence to inform the translation of research on social determinants of health into public health impact; 4) contribute to innovation in methods to improve the rigor and relevance of social epidemiology; and 5) encourage critical self-ref lection on the direction, challenges, successes, and failures of the field. future; population health; social epidemiology Abbreviation: COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019. Editor's note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Journal of Epidemiology. Social epidemiology is concerned with the influence of social forces on population health and health equity. In contrast to a disease focus (e.g., cancer or cardiovascular epidemiology) or a focus on a single type of exposure (e.g., nutritional epidemiology), social epidemiology encompasses both historical and contemporary social and economic determinants of health. These determinants include features of social and physical environments, networks of relationships in a society, and the institutions, politics, policies, norms and cultures that shape them. The American Journal of Epidemiology has a history of publishing groundbreaking studies within social epidemiology that spawned new fields of inquiry; for example, the contribution of the social environment to host resistance (1), the association of social networks with population health (2), the influence of neighborhood contexts on health (3, 4), and the use of natural experiments to shed new light on old questions. The Journal has also engaged actively with the ongoing challenges and debates in our discipline: debates that have served to refine our own mission within the field (5-10), debates on theories and methods (11, 12), and debates about questions raised by social epidemiologists that have broad impact-most recently, whether the potential outcomes approach to causation is inherently conservative and inimical to the radical social change needed to address social injustice (13-17). In the two decades following the publication of the textbook Social Epidemiology (18), we have witnessed exponential growth in the output of researchers who call themselves 557

Agricultural use of antimicrobials in food animal production may contribute to the global emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). However, considerable gaps exist in research on the use of antimicrobial drugs (AMDs) in food animals in small-scale production systems in low- and middle-income countries, despite the minimal regulation of antimicrobials in such regions. The aim of this study was to identify factors that may influence AMD use in livestock among pastoral communities in Kenya. We collected data related to household and herd demographics, herd health, and herd management from 55 households in the Maasai Mara ecosystem, Kenya, between 2018 and 2019. We used multi-model logistic regression inference (supervised machine learning) to ascertain trends in AMD use within these households. AMD use in cattle was significantly associated with AMD use in sheep and goats (p = 0.05), implying that decisions regarding AMD use in cattle or sheep and goats were interdependent. AMD use in sheep and goats was negatively associated with vaccination against the foot and mouth disease (FMD) virus in cattle (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01–0.67, p = 0.02). Less AMD use was observed for vaccine-preventable diseases like contagious ecthyma when households had access to state veterinarians (OR = 0.06, p = 0.05, 95% CI 0.004–0.96). Overall, decisions to use AMDs were associated with vaccine usage, occurrence of respiratory diseases, and access to animal health advice. This hypothesis-generating study suggests that applying community-centric methods may be necessary to understand the use of AMDs in pastoral communities.

Objective To report perspectives of participants in a food benefit program that includes FAS restrictions and FAS restrictions paired with F/V incentives. Design Randomized experimental trial in which participant perspectives were an exploratory study outcome. Setting Participants were randomized into one of three SNAP-like food benefit program groups - (1) Restriction: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits; (2) Restriction paired with incentive: not allowed to buy FAS with benefits and 30% financial incentive on eligible F/V purchased using benefits; or (3) Control: Same food purchasing rules as SNAP. Participants were asked questions to assess program satisfaction. Participants Adults in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN metropolitan area, eligible for but not currently participating in SNAP who completed baseline and follow-up study measures (n=254). Results Among remaining households in each group, most found the program helpful in buying nutritious foods (88.2%-95.7%) and were satisfied with the program (89.1%-93.0%). Sensitivity analysis results indicate that reported helpfulness and satisfaction with the program may in some instances be lower among the Restriction and the Restrictions paired with Incentive groups in comparison to the control group. Conclusions A food benefit program that includes restriction on purchase of FAS or restriction paired with a financial incentive for F/V purchases may be acceptable to most SNAP-eligible households with children.

Rationale & Objective: Screening for chronic kidney disease (CKD) is recommended for patients with diabetes and hypertension as stated by the respective professional societies. However, CKD, a silent disease usually detected at later stages, is associated with low socioeconomic status (SES). We assessed whether adding census tract SES status to the standard screening approach improves our ability to identify patients with CKD. Study Design: Screening test analysis. Settings & Participants: Electronic health records (EHR) of 256,162 patients seen at a health care system in the 7-county Minneapolis/St. Paul area and linked census tract data. Exposure: The first quartile of census tract SES (median value of owner-occupied housing units <$165,200; average household income <$35,935; percentage of residents >25 years of age with a bachelor's degree or higher <20.4%), hypertension, and diabetes. Outcomes: CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, or urinary albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g, or urinary protein-creatinine ratio >150 mg/g, or urinary analysis [albuminuria] >30 mg/d). Analytical Approach: Sensitivity, specificity, and number needed to screen (NNS) to detect CKD if we screened patients who had hypertension and/or diabetes and/or who lived in low-SES tracts (belonging to the first quartile of any of the 3 measures of tract SES) versus the standard approach. Results: CKD was prevalent in 13% of our cohort. Sensitivity, specificity, and NNS of detecting CKD after adding tract SES to the screening approach were 67% (95% CI, 66.2%-67.2%), 61% (95% CI, 61.1%-61.5%), and 5, respectively. With the standard approach, sensitivity of detecting CKD was 60% (95% CI, 59.4%-60.4%), specificity was 73% (95% CI, 72.4%-72.7%), and NNS was 4. Limitations: One health care system and selection bias. Conclusions: Leveraging patients’ addresses from the EHR and adding tract-level SES to the standard screening approach modestly increases the sensitivity of detecting patients with CKD at a cost of decreased specificity. Identifying further factors that improve CKD detection at an early stage are needed to slow the progression of CKD and prevent cardiovascular complications.

Randomization is an important tool used to establish causal inferences in studies designed to further our understanding of questions related to obesity and nutrition. To take advantage of the inferences afforded by randomization, scientific standards must be upheld during the planning, execution, analysis, and reporting of such studies. We discuss ten errors in randomized experiments from real-world examples from the literature and outline best practices for their avoidance. These ten errors include: representing nonrandom allocation as random, failing to adequately conceal allocation, not accounting for changing allocation ratios, replacing subjects in nonrandom ways, failing to account for non-independence, drawing inferences by comparing statistical significance from within-group comparisons instead of between-groups, pooling data and breaking the randomized design, failing to account for missing data, failing to report sufficient information to understand study methods, and failing to frame the causal question as testing the randomized assignment per se. We hope that these examples will aid researchers, reviewers, journal editors, and other readers to endeavor to a high standard of scientific rigor in randomized experiments within obesity and nutrition research.

<p> <bold>Background:</bold> MRSA continues to spread in hospitals, despite modest recent success. Gaps exist regarding how hospital policies impact MRSA transmission in hospitals. Characterization of the policy environment has been useful in approaching other public health issues including control of alcohol, firearms, tobacco, and traffic safety. <bold>Objective:</bold> Our goal was to describe measurable and modifiable policy components designed to prevent MRSA in hospital settings. <bold>Methods:</bold> We examined 4 types of hospital policies from 5 metropolitan hospitals in Minnesota: hand hygiene, multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) and isolation, healthcare personnel influenza vaccination, and whistleblower (corporate compliance). We developed a tool to systematically evaluate policies for each topic that included 19–23 instructional and implementation elements guided by regulatory and clinical practice guidelines: purpose, expectations, education and training, monitoring, enforcement, corrective actions, responsibilities, and corrective actions. Each policy element was evaluated for its presence (yes or no) and thoroughness (nonexistent = 0, cursory = 1, thorough = 2). <bold>Results:</bold> All hospitals had hand hygiene and MDRO and isolation policies; 3 of 5 had influenza and whistleblower policies. The policies varied in comprehensiveness and thoroughness across hospitals and topics. Most policies included purpose and policy statements with a statement of organizational rules (14 of 16 and 16 of 16, respectively) with mean thoroughness scores of 1.04 and 1.20, respectively. Most policies lacked consequences for noncompliance (6 of 16), accountability (6 of 16), and monitoring and enforcement of policy expectations (5 of 16). When included, the policy components scored low for thoroughness, and 50% of policies (8 of 16; range, 20% for hand hygiene and 100% for influenza vaccination) specified expectations for educating staff about the policy topic, with a mean thoroughness score of 0.75. Responsibilities for policy expectations were lacking: responsibilities for product needs and availability (3 of 13), training and education (1 of 16); and monitoring compliance with skills and techniques (4 of 16). Of the 4 policy types, influenza vaccination was the most complete. All influenza policies had 50% of categories completed versus hand hygiene (26%), MDRO (17%), and whistleblower (26%). The hand hygiene policies scored highest for thoroughness; 48% of policy elements scored &gt;1.0 versus MDRO (22%), influenza (25%), and whistleblower (11%). <bold>Conclusions:</bold> We developed a systematic method to quantitatively evaluate hospital policies. Our review of hospital policies most commonly contained thorough instructional elements such as organizational requirements and protocols and procedures. Policies often lacked implementation elements such as expectations for monitoring, enforcement, responsibilities, accountabilities, and staff training and education. As we begin to characterize policy, endogenous in nature, as a potential exposure, it is important that we develop rigorous measurement. We have provided a first step in developing such an approach. </p>

<p>The purpose of this study was to examine psychosocial constructs targeted as potential mediators in a prior physical activity (PA) intervention study. This secondary analysis used data from 102 older adults randomized to one of four conditions—within a 2 (Interpersonal Strategies: yes, no) x 2 (Intrapersonal Strategies: yes, no) factorial design. We tested intervention effects on social support, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and goal attainment, and whether these constructs mediated intervention effects on PA. Participants who received interventions with interpersonal strategies, compared to those who did not, increased their readiness (post-intervention), the self-regulation subscale of self-assessment, and goal attainment (post-intervention, 6-months). Participants who received interventions with intrapersonal strategies, compared to those who did not, increased their social support from family (post-intervention). There was no statistically significant mediation. To understand mechanisms through which interventions increase older adults’ PA and to improve intervention effectiveness, researchers should continue to examine potential psychosocial mediators.</p>

BACKGROUND Policy makers are considering changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Proposed changes include financially incentivizing the purchase of healthier foods and prohibiting the use of funds for purchasing foods high in added sugars. SNAP participant perspectives may be useful in understanding the consequences of these proposed changes. OBJECTIVE To determine whether food restrictions and/or incentives are acceptable to food benefit program participants. DESIGN Data were collected as part of an experimental trial in which lower-income adults were randomly assigned to one of four financial food benefit conditions: (1) Incentive: 30% financial incentive on eligible fruits and vegetables purchased using food benefits; (2) Restriction: not allowed to buy sugar-sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, or candies with food benefits; (3) Incentive plus Restriction; or (4) Control: no incentive/restriction. Participants completed closed- and open-ended questions about their perceptions on completion of the 12-week program. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING Adults eligible or nearly eligible for SNAP were recruited between 2013 and 2015 by means of events or flyers in the Minneapolis/St Paul, MN, metropolitan area. Of the 279 individuals who completed baseline measures, 265 completed follow-up measures and are included in these analyses. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS χ2 analyses were conducted to assess differences in program satisfaction. Responses to open-ended questions were qualitatively analyzed using principles of content analysis. RESULTS There were no statistically significant or meaningful differences between experimental groups in satisfaction with the program elements evaluated in the study. Most participants in all conditions found the food program helpful in buying nutritious foods (94.1% to 98.5%) and in buying the kinds of foods they wanted (85.9% to 95.6%). Qualitative data suggested that most were supportive of restrictions, although a few were dissatisfied. Participants were uniformly supportive of incentives. CONCLUSIONS Findings suggest a food benefit program that includes incentives for purchasing fruits and vegetables and/or restrictions on the use of program funds for purchasing foods high in added sugars appears to be acceptable to most participants.

<p>Fine resolution spatial variability in pneumonia hospitalization may identify correlates with socioeconomic, demographic and environmental factors. We performed a retrospective study within the Fairview Health System network of Minnesota. Patients 2 months of age and older hospitalized with pneumonia between 2011 and 2015 were geocoded to their census block group, and pneumonia hospitalization risk was analyzed in relation to socioeconomic, demographic and environmental factors. Spatial analyses were performed using Esri's ArcGIS software, and multivariate Poisson regression was used. Hospital encounters of 17 840 patients were included in the analysis. Multivariate Poisson regression identified several significant associations, including a 40% increased risk of pneumonia hospitalization among census block groups with large, compared with small, populations of ⩾65 years, a 56% increased risk among census block groups in the bottom (first) quartile of median household income compared to the top (fourth) quartile, a 44% higher risk in the fourth quartile of average nitrogen dioxide emissions compared with the first quartile, and a 47% higher risk in the fourth quartile of average annual solar insolation compared to the first quartile. After adjusting for income, moving from the first to the second quartile of the race/ethnic diversity index resulted in a 21% significantly increased risk of pneumonia hospitalization. In conclusion, the risk of pneumonia hospitalization at the census-block level is associated with age, income, race/ethnic diversity index, air quality, and solar insolation, and varies by region-specific factors. Identifying correlates using fine spatial analysis provides opportunities for targeted prevention and control.</p>

BACKGROUND This research evaluated the effects of financial incentives and purchase restrictions on food purchasing in a food benefit program for low income people. METHODS Participants (n=279) were randomized to groups: 1) Incentive- 30% financial incentive for fruits and vegetables purchased with food benefits; 2) Restriction- no purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, or candies with food benefits; 3) Incentive plus Restriction; or 4) Control- no incentive or restrictions. Participants received a study-specific debit card where funds were added monthly for 12-weeks. Food purchase receipts were collected over 16 weeks. Total dollars spent on grocery purchases and by targeted food categories were computed from receipts. Group differences were examined using general linear models. RESULTS Weekly purchases of fruit significantly increased in the Incentive plus Restriction ($4.8) compared to the Restriction ($1.7) and Control ($2.1) groups (p <.01). Sugar-sweetened beverage purchases significantly decreased in the Incentive plus Restriction (-$0.8 per week) and Restriction ($-1.4 per week) groups compared to the Control group (+$1.5; p< .0001). Sweet baked goods purchases significantly decreased in the Restriction (-$0.70 per week) compared to the Control group (+$0.82 per week; p < .01). CONCLUSIONS Paired financial incentives and restrictions on foods and beverages purchased with food program funds may support more healthful food purchases compared to no incentives or restrictions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02643576 .

Importance Strategies to improve the nutritional status of those participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are of interest to policymakers. Objective To evaluate whether the proposed policy of incentivizing the purchase of fruits and vegetables and prohibiting the purchase of less nutritious foods in a food benefit program improves the nutritional quality of participants' diets. Design, Setting, and Participants Lower income participants (n = 279) not currently enrolled in SNAP were randomized to 1 of 4 experimental financial food benefit conditions: (1) incentive (30% financial incentive for fruits and vegetables purchased using food benefits); (2) restriction (not allowed to buy sugar sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, or candies with food benefits); (3) incentive plus restriction (30% financial incentive on fruits and vegetables and restriction of purchase of sugar sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, or candy with food benefits); or (4) control (no incentive or restrictions on foods purchased with food benefits). Participants in all conditions were given a study-specific debit card where funds were added every 4 weeks for a 12-week period. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and in the final 4 weeks of the experimental period. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes (from 24-hour dietary recalls) included intake of energy, discretionary calories, and overall diet quality. Results A number of favorable changes were observed in the incentive plus restriction condition that were significantly different from changes in the control condition. These included (1) reduced intake of energy (-96 kcal/d, standard error [SE], 59.9); (2) reduced intake of discretionary calories (-64 kcal/d, SE 26.3); (3) reduced intake of sugar sweetened beverages, sweet baked goods, and candies (-0.6 servings/d, SE 0.2); (4) increased intake of solid fruit (0.2 servings/d, SE 0.1); and (5) improved Healthy Eating Index score (4.1 points, SE 1.4). Fewer improvements were observed in the incentive only and restriction only arms. Conclusions and Relevance A food benefit program that pairs incentives for purchasing more fruits and vegetables with restrictions on the purchase of less nutritious foods may reduce energy intake and improve the nutritional quality of the diet of participants compared with a program that does not include incentives or restrictions. Clinical Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02643576.

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and to determine the geographic distribution of vaccine uptake while accounting for spatial autocorrelation. DESIGN: This study is cross-sectional in design using data collected via the Internet from the Survey of Minnesotans About Screening and HPV study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The sample consists of 760 individuals aged 18-30 years nested within 99 ZIP codes surrounding the downtown area of Minneapolis, Minnesota. RESULTS: In all, 46.2% of participants had received >/= 1 dose of HPV vaccine (67.7% of women and 13.0% of men). Prevalence of HPV vaccination was found to exhibit strong spatial dependence ([Formula: see text] = 0.9951) across ZIP codes. Accounting for spatial dependence, age (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.83) and male gender (OR=0.04, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.07) were negatively associated with vaccination, while liberal political preferences (OR=4.31, 95% CI 2.32 to 8.01), and college education (OR=2.58, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.83) were found to be positively associated with HPV vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Strong spatial dependence and heterogeneity of HPV vaccination prevalence were found across ZIP codes, indicating that spatial statistical models are needed to accurately identify and estimate factors associated with vaccine uptake across geographic units. This study also underscores the need for more detailed data collected at local levels (eg, ZIP code), as patterns of HPV vaccine receipt were found to differ significantly from aggregated state and national patterns. Future work is needed to further pinpoint areas with the greatest disparities in HPV vaccination and how to then access these populations to improve vaccine uptake.

Disclosure is often proposed as a strategy for handling financial conflicts of interest in medicine. Yet there has been no guidance on how clinicians should disclose potential conflicts of interest to patients. To discern patients' attitudes toward conflicts of interest in medicine and their opinions about how physicians should disclose possible conflicts in the clinical setting, we conducted six focus groups with patients recruited from three clinics in the Twin Cities area. Investigators reviewed audio recordings of the focus group discussions independently and identified themes. Maintaining patient-doctor trust was critical to all study participants. Most wanted to know only about conflicts of interest that were directly relevant to their care. In addition, most participants said physicians and other health care providers should offer patients an easy-to-read document about any conflict of interest during clinic check-ins and bring up the subject when discussing specific treatment plans for which the conflict of interest is relevant. Our study offers the first insights into patient attitudes toward and opinions about disclosure practices in clinical settings. More research into the practical aspects of managing conflicts of interest is needed as ineffective disclosure may undermine patients' trust in their doctors.