Arizona Department of Health Prevention Services' Work to Advance Health Equity Starts With an Assessment of Its Own Organizational Culture.

OBJECTIVE: To identify skills, organizational practices, and infrastructure needed to address health equity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed an anonymous online staff survey to assess how to address health equity and policy implications and develop a baseline for future initiatives. We distributed invitations to all Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) Division of Prevention Services (DPS) state- and non-state-designated employees in February 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Employee self-reported perceptions of how agency, division, and programs address health inequities; information about (1) organizational and individual traits needed to support our ability to implement effective health equity-focused work and (2) processes to enable improved organizational and workforce capacities; and implications for strategic planning. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent (N = 123) of eligible staff participated. Overall, we identified 21 of 28 organizational and 17 of 31 workforce capacities needing significant improvement. Organizational capacities were "Institutional commitment to address health inequities" (described using 6 elements), "Hiring to address health inequities" (2 elements), "Structure that supports true community partnerships" (3 elements), "Support staff to address health inequities" (4 elements), "Transparent and inclusive communication" (4 elements), "Community accessible data and planning" (1 element), and "Streamlined administrative process" (1 element). Workforce capacities were "Knowledge of public health framework" (4 elements), "Understand the social, environmental, and structural determinants of health" (1 element), "Community knowledge" (1 element), "Leadership" (4 elements), "Collaboration skills" (3 elements), "Community organizing" (3 elements), and "Problem-solving ability" (1 element). Using survey results, groups of staff identified change needed, specific actions, and training and communication to increase employee understanding. Proposed activities focused on data/evaluation, program planning/contracts, communications, personnel development, and community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This survey allowed ADHS to establish a baseline of staff knowledge of the ADHS and DPS organizational commitment to address health inequities; results show us what areas to focus on to strengthen our capacity to achieve better outcomes; and improve health and wellness for all Arizonans.

Multimodal approaches for inequality in kidney care: turning social determinants of health into opportunities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Kidney disease is associated with major health and economic burdens worldwide, disproportionately carried by people in low and middle socio-demographic index quintile countries and in underprivileged communities. Social determinants such as education, income and living and working conditions strongly influence kidney health outcomes. This review synthesised recent research into multimodal interventions to promote kidney health equity that focus on the social determinants of health. RECENT FINDINGS: Inequity in kidney healthcare commonly arises from nationality, race, sex, food insecurity, healthcare access and environmental conditions, and affects kidney health outcomes such as chronic kidney disease progression, dialysis and transplant access, morbidity and mortality. Multimodal approaches to addressing this inequity were identified, targeted to: patients, families and caregivers (nutrition, peer support, financial status, patient education and employment); healthcare teams (workforce, healthcare clinician education); health systems (data coding, technology); communities (community engagement); and health policy (clinical guidelines, policy, environment and research). SUMMARY: The engagement of diverse patients, families, caregivers and communities in healthcare research and implementation, as well as clinical care delivery, is vital to counteracting the deleterious effects of social determinants of kidney health.

Cumulative trauma, adversity, and loss among juvenile justice-involved girls: Implications for health disparities.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are social determinants of health that increase morbidity and mortality and are prevalent among juvenile justice-involved (JJI) youth. ACEs drive health-risk behaviors (e.g., substance use) that reflect maladaptive coping, increase arrest risk, and overlap with posttraumatic risk-seeking theoretically and reckless/self-destructive behaviors diagnostically. However, little is known, especially among girls, about cumulative developmental adversity burden distress (i.e., total cumulative/lifespan stressor reactivity, grief-specific and adversity-related symptoms, and adversity-driven maladaptive coping strategies by age 18) and associated health risk impacts. Therefore, we assessed (a) developmental adversity burden indicators capturing expanded ACEs (E-ACEs; reflecting cumulative losses and traumatic events), cumulative distress, and risk characteristics; (b) potential racial/ethnic differences in developmental adversity burden; and (c) predictors of maladaptive coping among 223 JJI girls. Participants averaged 15 E-ACEs, endorsing 61.0% of stressor reactivity reactions, 58.4% of cumulative grief-specific symptoms, 55.7% (avoidance) to 73.2% (arousal) of adversity-related symptoms, and 45.0% of adversity-driven maladaptive coping strategies. White JJI girls endorsed significantly higher stressor reactivity and maladaptive coping than Latina girls (e.g., 38.8% vs. 14.6% suicide attempts), ds = 0.56-0.71. Adaptive LASSO analyses of maladaptive coping highlighted primary contributions from stressor reactivity, arousal alterations (excluding reckless/self-destructive behaviors), and cognition/mood alterations but not E-ACEs, grief, avoidance, or intrusions. Participants reported high levels of all cumulative developmental adversity burden indicators (e.g., 81.6% reported reckless/self-destructive behaviors). Results support cumulative, adversity-informed, universal precautions and assessments. Further, emotion regulation interventions targeting stressor reactivity, cognition/mood alterations, and/or arousal alterations may be useful for JJI youth with maladaptive coping.

Reporting of determinants of health inequities and participant characteristics in randomized controlled trials of juvenile idiopathic arthritis in Canada: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) is the most common form of childhood inflammatory arthritis. The disease burden of JIA is substantial as patients require specialized medical practitioners for diagnosis and chronic treatments that are both costly and time intensive. Discrepancies in access to care due to health inequities such as socioeconomic status or geographic location may lead to vastly different health outcomes. As research informs advances in care, is important to consider inclusion and diversity in JIA research. METHODS: We reviewed and synthesized randomized controlled trials for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the most common type of arthritis among children and adolescents, in Canada with the aim of characterizing participants and identifying how determinants of health inequities are reported. To do so, we searched Medline (1990 to July 2022), Embase (1990 to July 2022), and CENTRAL (inception to July 2022) for articles meeting all of the following criteria: Canadian randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions on juvenile idiopathic arthritis populations. Data extraction was guided by the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group's PROGRESS-Plus framework on determinants that lead to health inequities (e.g., Place of residence; Race; Occupation; Gender/Sex; Religion; Education; Socioeconomic status; and Social capital). RESULTS: Of 4,074 unique records, 5 were deemed eligible for inclusion. From these determinants of health inequities, Gender/Sex and Age were the only that were reported in all studies with most participants being female and 12.6 years old on average. In addition, Race, Socioeconomic status, Education and Features of relationships were each reported once in three different studies. Lastly, Place of residence, Occupation, Religion, Social Capital and Time-dependent relationships were not reported at all. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review suggests limited reporting on determinants of health inequities in randomized controlled trials for JIA in Canada and a need for a reporting framework that reflects typical characteristics of juvenile patient populations.

COVID-19-related global health governance and population health priorities for health equity in G20 countries: a scoping review.

Since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, the promotion of health equity including the health of various population sub-groups has been compromised, human rights jeopardised, and social inequities further exacerbated. Citizens worldwide, including in the Group of 20 (G20) countries, were affected by both global health governance (GHG) processes and decisions and public health measures taken by governments to respond to COVID-19. While it is critical to swiftly respond to COVID-19, little is known about how and to what extent the GHG is affecting population health priorities for health equity in global economies such as the G20 countries. This scoping review synthesised and identified knowledge gaps on how the COVID-19-related GHG is affecting population health priorities for policy, programme, and research in G20 countries. We followed the five-stage scoping review methodology promoted by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We searched four bibliographic databases for references conducted in G20 countries and regions and published in English and French, between January 2020 and April 2023. Out of 4,625 references and after two phases of screening, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. G20 countries included in the review were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the European Union. We found insufficient collaboration and coordination and misalignment among governance actors at multiple levels. In most cases, equity considerations were not prioritised while unequal consequences of COVID-19 public health measures on population groups were widely reported. COVID-19-related population health priorities mainly focused on upstream and midstream determinants of health. Our scoping review showed the stark inequities of COVID-19 public health outcomes, coupled with a prevalent lack of coherent collaboration and coordination among governance actors. Moreover, governance as an object of empirical study is still emerging when examining its intersection with global health and population health policy, programme, and research. An urgent shift is required to effectively act upon structural health determinants that include transformative and comprehensive policies for prevention, equity, resilience, and sustainable health.

Applying critical leadership to advance 2SLGBTQIA+ health equity: A complex adaptive systems approach.

Health inequities are increasing in Canada and across the globe. They pose a substantial threat to the health and well-being of millions of people. Organizational leadership, if it is to effectively contribute to tackling these inequities, must become more systematically infused with competencies that address power and the structural determinants of health. Health equity contexts for 2SLGBTQIA+ (Two Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, and Plus) remain a neglected area of focus in organizational leadership. The goals of this article are to provide: (1) a concise description of critical perspectives and critical leadership studies, (2) describe the urgency of theoretical and applied leadership approaches that more fulsomely integrate critical perspectives, and (3) illustrate an integration of a Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) approach to support critical perspectives in advancing health equity for 2SLGBTQIA+ people.

Global Learning for Health Equity: A Survey of Five Global Learning Sites in the United States.

Global learning is the practice of adopting and adapting global ideas to local challenges. To advance the field of global learning, we performed a case study of five communities that had implemented global health models to advance health equity in a U.S. setting. Surveys were developed using a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework, and each site completed surveys to characterize their global learning experience with respect to community context, the learning and implementation process, implementation science considerations, and health equity. The immense diversity of sites and their experiences underscored the heterogenous nature of global learning. Nonetheless, all cases highlighted core themes of addressing social determinants of health through strong community engagement. Cross-sector participation and implementation science evaluation were strategies applied by many but not all sites. We advocate for continued global learning that advances health equity and fosters equitable partnerships with mutual benefits to origination and destination sites.

Social Determinants of Health, Quality of Public Health Data, and Health Equity in the United States.

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the impact social determinants of health (SDOH) can have on health equity in the United States. In this essay, we provide a framework for considering the upstream structural factors that affect the distribution of SDOH as well as the downstream consequences for individuals and groups. Improving health equity in the United States will require multiple policy streams, each requiring comprehensive data for policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Although much progress has been made in improving these data, there remain considerable gaps and opportunities for improvement. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(12):1301-1308. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307423).

Global inequalities in mental health problems: understanding the predictors of lifetime prevalence, treatment utilisation and perceived helpfulness across 111 countries.

Socio-economic inequalities in mental health problems are found in measures covering prevalence, treatment utilisation, and treatment helpfulness. However, whether these inequalities exist globally and what factors explain between-country variation is unclear. We use a nationally representative individual-level survey dataset (Wellcome Global Monitor, 2023) in 111 countries (N = 117,088) to test if socio-economic factors (household income, education), psycho-social factors (stigma perception, trust in health professionals) and country-level factors (GDP, Gini, health expenditure) predict (1) self-reported lifetime prevalence of anxiety and depression symptomology, (2) treatment utilisation and (3) perceived treatment helpfulness talking to a mental health professional and taking prescribed medication. Multi-level logistic regression models were used. Across both HICs and LMICs, being in the richest income quintile within each country is associated with a lower probability of experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression compared to the poorest quintile (OR = 0.67 CI[0.64-0.70]), as well as a higher probability of talking to a mental health professional (OR = 1.25[1.14-1.36]), and of perceiving this treatment as very helpful (OR = 1.23[1.07-1.40]). However, being among the richest income quintile is not associated with taking prescribed medication (OR = 0.97[0.89-1.06]) and its perceived helpfulness (OR = 1.06[0.94-1.21]) across all countries. Trust in health practitioners is associated with higher mental health professional utilisation (OR = 1.10[1.06-1.14]) and helpfulness (OR = 1.32[1.25-1.40]). This analysis reveals a global 'triple inequality in mental health', whereby disadvantages of lower SES individuals persist in three outcomes (lifetime prevalence, treatment utilisation and helpfulness). Treatment utilisation and helpfulness also vary by trust in healthcare professionals and treatment type. Policymakers must address all three inequalities and their fundamental causes.

Uses of Social Determinants of Health Data to Address Cardiovascular Disease and Health Equity: A Scoping Review.

Background Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Prior research suggests that social determinants of health have a compounding effect on health and are associated with cardiovascular disease. This scoping review explores what and how social determinants of health data are being used to address cardiovascular disease and improve health equity. Methods and Results After removing duplicate citations, the initial search yielded 4110 articles for screening, and 50 studies were identified for data extraction. Most studies relied on similar data sources for social determinants of health, including geocoded electronic health record data, national survey responses, and census data, and largely focused on health care access and quality, and the neighborhood and built environment. Most focused on developing interventions to improve health care access and quality or characterizing neighborhood risk and individual risk. Conclusions Given that few interventions addressed economic stability, education access and quality, or community context and social risk, the potential for harnessing social determinants of health data to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease remains unrealized.

Developing a Health Equity Impact Assessment 'Indigenous Lens Tool' to address challenges in providing equitable cancer screening for indigenous peoples.

BACKGROUND: In spite of past efforts to increase screening uptake, the rates of screening-detectable cancers including breast, cervical, colorectal and lung are rising among Indigenous persons in Ontario compared to other Ontarians. The Ontario Ministry of Health has an equity framework, the Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) Tool, that was developed to guide organizations in the provision of more equitable health and social services. Although the HEIA Tool identifies that the health of Indigenous persons may benefit from more equitable provision of health and social services, it provides very little specific guidance on how to apply the HEIA Tool in a culturally relevant way to policies and programs that may impact Indigenous peoples. DISCUSSION: Guided by the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, an Indigenous Lens Tool was developed through a collaborative and iterative process with stakeholders at Cancer Care Ontario and with representatives from Indigenous community-based organizations. The Indigenous Lens Tool consists of four scenarios, with supporting documentation that provide context for each step of the HEIA Tool and thereby facilitate application of the equity framework to programs and policies. The document is in no way meant to be comprehensive or representative of the diverse health care experiences of Indigenous peoples living in Canada nor the social determinants that surround health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Rather, this document provides a first step to support development of policies and programs that recognize and uphold the rights to health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: The Indigenous Lens Tool was created to facilitate implementation of an existing health equity framework within Cancer Care Ontario (now Ontario Health). Even though the Indigenous Lens Tool was created for this purpose, the principles contained within it are translatable to other health and social service policy applications.

Addressing Health Disparities in Pediatric Eye Care for School-Age Children: A Call to Action.

Disparities in access to pediatric eye care among school-age children pose significant challenges to their health and well-being; addressing these disparities will necessitate coordination across multiple systems. Although vision screenings are mandated in most US states, differences persist in terms of who receives screenings and subsequent follow-up care. Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors exacerbate the issue, with potential ramifications of unaddressed eye problems on learning performance and the risk of widening preexisting educational disparities. To address these challenges, various initiatives and strategic plans have emphasized the need to improve access, enhance diversity in the workforce, and promote health literacy. School-based vision programs (SBVPs) have shown promise in improving access to care and academic outcomes, but issues with integration into the health care system exist. This article explores opportunities to address structural barriers, establish resilient and equitable systems for delivering pediatric eye care to school-age children, and leverage the success of SBVPs to build stronger connections with community providers. Proposed strategies include developing standardized guidelines; establishing referral mechanisms; fostering communication with parents, teachers, and community providers; and promoting eye health literacy across the school community. Collectively, these measures aim to improve health outcomes, address social determinants of health, and reduce disparities in access to care.

Diversity and Disparities in Lung Cancer Outcomes Among Minorities.

ABSTRACT: Because of diversities and disparities, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates among minorities are disproportionate compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) populations. This review focuses on the disparities in lung cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes that minorities, mainly Hispanic and Black, experience compared with NHW populations. Despite efforts such as improving the eligibility criteria for screening to improve lung cancer survival rates, disparities persist, particularly among minority populations. However, the "Hispanic Paradox" describes the lower incidence and better survival rates observed in Hispanics compared with other ethnic groups best explained by possible contributions such as genetics and other factors such as dietary habits. Disparities in screening, particularly among underrepresented populations, are frequently explained by cultural, socioeconomic, and health care access barriers. There are also disparities in receiving appropriate treatment, such as surgical treatment, with fewer Hispanics and Blacks undergoing surgery than NHW individuals, resulting in lower overall survival rates. In addition, the prevalence of biomarker testing varies by racial and ethnic groups, influencing personalized treatment plans and outcomes. Finally, because of genetic and social determinants of health, the clinical outcomes of targeted therapy and immunotherapy may differ among minority populations. Identifying and addressing social determinants of health in real time are a "must" to have a significant impact in reducing lung cancer disparities. A comprehensive and multifaceted strategy is required to rectify disparities in cancer treatment. This strategy includes increasing levels of awareness and education, reducing financial and access barriers, and promoting increased diversity in clinical trial recruitment. By effectively addressing these complex challenges, the objective of providing equitable cancer care to all patients, regardless of race or ethnicity, can be achieved. To identify and address disparities, heightened awareness and education are essential. Access to health care is ensured by reducing financial and access barriers. Finally, increased diversity in clinical trial recruitment advances the generalizability of findings and promotes equitable representation of all racial and ethnic groups, resulting in improved outcomes for all patients.

Addressing health equity in pediatric surgical care in the United States- Progress and challenges.

There are notable inequities in health outcomes for children based on their social determinants of health (SDOH), including where they are born and live, their primary language, their race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and more. These health inequities are not restricted to resource limited settings; here we highlight three broad topics that are relevant to pediatric surgeons in the United States (US): access to care and disparities, and examples of inequities in firearm-related injuries and appendicitis. Most of our patients will at some point require operative interventions, yet there can be significant challenges in accessing this care and navigating our health systems, particularly around complex perioperative care. There are significant opportunities to improve equitable care by helping patients navigate our health systems and connecting them with additional resources, including screening for primary care services. Firearm-related injuries are now the leading cause of death in children in the US, with significant associated morbidity for non-fatal injuries. There are notable inequities in the risk of injury and types of injuries experienced by children based on their SDOH. Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies managed by pediatric surgeons, with similar inequities in the rates of perforated appendicitis based on a child's SDOH. For both issues, addressing the inequities our patients experience requires moving upstream and working towards prevention. Key opportunities include better research and data to understand the drivers for observed inequities, multidisciplinary collaboration, community engagement, and public health advocacy among others. As a profession, we have a responsibility to work to address the health inequities our patients experience.

Applying the RE-AIM framework to evaluate an educational model to "close the gap" and improve health equity in uncontrolled hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: To use the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate an educational model addressing self-management of uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: We used a pre-post single cohort design to identify minoritized patients with uncontrolled hypertension (systolic > 160 mmHg and/or diastolic > 100 mmHg). Trained Ambassadors provided telephone outreach, skill-based blood pressure (BP) monitoring, and goal-setting for 4 months. Follow-up occurred at 7 months. We evaluated the initiative using the RE-AIM framework and quantitative analysis for process and outcome measures post-intervention. RESULTS: Among Black patients (n = 345), the average age was 55.4 years (8.7), half identified as male (n = 173, 50.1 %); many were uninsured (n = 159, 46.1 %). Engagement in calls occurred for 67.8 % (n = 234) of the cohort; monitor distribution was 22.9 % (n = 79); and goal setting occurred for 64 patients. BP improved for 40 % of the cohort (mean pre: 168/98 mmHg, mean post: 150/89 mmHg; p < 0.0001) and 40 % of patients' last known BP was < 140/90. CONCLUSIONS: RE-AIM evaluation of the Closing the Gap initiative suggests that the model is associated with BP reduction in high-risk Black patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An educational model for patient-centered hypertension management in low-income populations is feasible and addresses self-monitoring barriers.

Community Perceptions of Health Equity: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Notable inequities in patient experiences exist in the healthcare system. Communities with a large concentration of blacks and immigrants are often marginalized rather than centralized in the healthcare system. These inequities may fuel distrust and exacerbate adverse outcomes, thereby widening the health gap. Addressing differences in patients' experiences of care is paramount for reducing health inequities. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used a purposive sampling method to recruit 62 participants to conduct 10 FGs (44 participants total) and 18 key informant interviews with stakeholders across Central Brooklyn. RESULTS: The data revealed three primary themes: Trust, Discrimination, and Social Determinants of Health (SDOHs). Each theme comprised subthemes as follows: For Trust, the subthemes included (1) confidence in the healthcare professional, (2) provider empathy, and (3) active participation in healthcare decisions. Regarding Discrimination, the subthemes involved (1) racism and identity, as well as (2) stigma related to diagnosis, disease state, and pain management. Lastly, for Social Determinants of Health, the key subtheme was the acknowledgment by providers that patients encounter competing priorities acting as barriers to care, such as housing instability and food insecurity. For the first theme, participants' interactions with the healthcare system were prompted by a necessity for medical attention, and not by trust. The participants reported that experiences of discrimination resulting from identity and stigma associated with diagnosis, disease state, and pain management amplified the disconnect between the community, the patients, and the healthcare system. This also exacerbated the poor healthcare experiences suffered by many people of color. For SDOHs, the participants identified housing, food security, and other various social factors that may undermine the effectiveness of the healthcare that patients receive. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in the health system, based on feedback from patients of color regarding their unique care experiences, are important initiatives in combating inequities in healthcare.

Evaluating local primary health care actions to address health inequities: analysis of Australia's Primary Health Networks.

BACKGROUND: Meso-level, regional primary health care organisations such as Australia's Primary Health Networks (PHNs) are well placed to address health inequities through comprehensive primary health care approaches. This study aimed to examine the equity actions of PHNs and identify factors that hinder or enable the equity-orientation of PHNs' activities. METHODS: Analysis of all 31 PHNs' public planning documents. Case studies with a sample of five PHNs, drawing on 29 original interviews with key stakeholders, secondary analysis of 38 prior interviews, and analysis of 30 internal planning guidance documents. This study employed an existing framework to examine equity actions. RESULTS: PHNs displayed clear intentions and goals for health equity and collected considerable evidence of health inequities. However, their planned activities were largely restricted to individualistic clinical and behavioural approaches, with little to facilitate access to other health and social services, or act on the broader social determinants of health. PHNs' equity-oriented planning was enabled by organisational values for equity, evidence of local health inequities, and engagement with local stakeholders. Equity-oriented planning was hindered by federal government constraints and lack of equity-oriented prompts in the planning process. CONCLUSIONS: PHNs' equity actions were limited. To optimise regional planning for health equity, primary health care organisations need autonomy and scope to act on the 'upstream' factors that contribute to local health issues. They also need sufficient time and resources for robust, systematic planning processes that incorporate mechanisms such as procedure guides and tools/templates, to capitalise on their local evidence to address health inequities. Organisations should engage meaningfully with local communities and service providers, to ensure approaches are equity sensitive and appropriately targeted.

Rural health disparities in allergy, asthma, and immunologic diseases: the current state and future direction for clinical care and research.

Rural health disparities are well-documented and continue to jeopardize the long-term health and wellness for the millions of individuals who live in rural America. The disparities observed between urban and rural residents encompass numerous morbidity and mortality measures for several chronic diseases and have been referred to as the "rural mortality penalty." Although the unmet health needs of rural communities are widely acknowledged, little is known about rural health disparities in allergies, asthma, and immunologic diseases. Furthermore, the intersection between rural health disparities and social determinants of health has not been fully explored. In order to achieve a more complete understanding of the factors that perpetuate rural health disparities, greater research efforts followed by improved practice and policy are needed that account for the complex social context within rural communities rather than a general comparison between urban and rural environments or focusing on biomedical factors. Moreover, research efforts must prioritize community inclusion throughout rural areas through meaningful engagement of stakeholders in both clinical care and research. In this review, we examine the scope of health disparities in the rural United States (U.S.) and the impact of social determinants of health. We then detail the current state of rural health disparities in the field of allergy, asthma, and immunology. To close, we offer future considerations to address knowledge gaps and unmet needs for both clinical care and research in addressing rural health disparities.