Invited Commentary: Multigenerational Social Determinants of Health—Opportunities and Challenges

Intergenerational transmission of health inequalities: towards a life course approach to socioeconomic inequalities in health - a review

Adult health inequalities are a persistent public health problem. Explanations are usually sought in behaviours and environments in adulthood, despite evidence on the importance of early life conditions for life course outcomes. We review evidence from a broad range of fields to unravel to what extent, and how, socioeconomic health inequalities are intergenerationally transmitted.We find that transmission of socioeconomic and associated health (dis)advantages from parents to offspring, and its underlying structural determinants, contributes substantially to socioeconomic inequalities in adult health. In the first two decades of life-from conception to early adulthood-parental socioeconomic position (SEP) and parental health strongly influence offspring adult SEP and health. Socioeconomic and health (dis)advantages are largely transmitted through the same broad mechanisms. Socioeconomic inequalities in the fetal environment contribute to inequalities in fetal development and birth outcomes, with lifelong socioeconomic and health consequences. Inequalities in the postnatal environment-especially the psychosocial and learning environment, physical exposures and socialisation-result in inequalities in child and adolescent health, development and behavioural habits, with health and socioeconomic consequences tracking into adulthood. Structural factors shape these mechanisms in a socioeconomically patterned and time-specific and place-specific way, leading to distinct birth-cohort patterns in health inequality.Adult health inequalities are for an important part intergenerationally transmitted. Effective health inequality reduction requires addressing intergenerational transmission of (dis)advantage by creating societal circumstances that allow all children to develop to their full potential.

Enhancing Impact: A Call to Action for Equitable Implementation Science

Despite investments in evidence-based interventions and Implementation Science, most evidence-based interventions are not widely or routinely adopted, delivered, or sustained in many real-world community and healthcare settings. This gap is even greater in settings and populations experiencing numerous social and structural barriers to health, with important implications for persistent patterns in health inequities. In this Viewpoint, as part of a Special Issue on Advancing the Adaptability of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management through Implementation Science, we outline seven calls to action for the field of Implementation Science, with the goal of encouraging researchers, practitioners, and funders to be more intentional and accountable in applying Implementation Science to have greater impact on promoting health equity. Calls to action include (1) enhance public health, community, and multi-sectoral partnerships to promote health equity and equitable implementation; (2) revisit and build the evidence base needed to promote health equity and impact at multiple levels; (3) prioritize focus on policy development, dissemination, and implementation; (4) be agile and responsive in application of Implementation Science frameworks, processes, and methods; (5) identify and redefine meaningful metrics for equity and impact; (6) disseminate scientific evidence and research to a diverse range of partners and potential beneficiaries; and (7) extend focus on de-implementation, mis-implementation, and sustainability which are central to enhancing health equity. Additionally, we outline why a focus on prevention and public health is essential to making progress towards health equity in Implementation Science, summarize important advancements that the field has made towards making equity more foundational, and pose important research questions to enhance equitable impact of work in this area.

Methodological Issues in Population-Based Studies of Multigenerational Associations

Laboratory-based animal research has revealed a number of exposures with multigenerational effects-ones that affect the children and grandchildren of those directly exposed. An important task for epidemiology is to investigate these relationships in human populations. Without the relative control achieved in laboratory settings, however, population-based studies of multigenerational associations have had to use a broader range of study designs. Current strategies to obtain multigenerational data include exploiting birth registries and existing cohort studies, ascertaining exposures within them, and measuring outcomes across multiple generations. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges inherent to multigenerational studies in human populations. After outlining standard taxonomy to facilitate discussion of study designs and target exposure associations, we highlight the methodological issues, focusing on the interplay between study design, analysis strategy, and the fact that outcomes may be related to family size. In a simulation study, we show that different multigenerational designs lead to estimates of different exposure associations with distinct scientific interpretations. Nevertheless, target associations can be recovered by incorporating (possibly) auxiliary information, and we provide insights into choosing an appropriate target association. Finally, we identify areas requiring further methodological development.