More than 100 years ago, public health began as an organized discipline, its purpose being to improve the health of populations rather than of individuals. Given its population-based focus, however, public health perennially faces dilemmas concerning the appropriate extent of its reach and whether its activities infringe on individual liberties in ethically troublesome ways. In this article a framework for ethics analysis of public health programs is proposed. To advance traditional public health goals while maximizing individual liberties and furthering social justice, public health interventions should reduce morbidity or mortality; data must substantiate that a program (or the series of programs of which a program is a part) will reduce morbidity or mortality; burdens of the program must be identified and minimized; the program must be implemented fairly and must, at times, minimize preexisting social injustices; and fair procedures must be used to determine which burdens are acceptable to a community.

Public health ethics, like the field of public health it addresses, traditionally has focused more on practice and particular cases than on theory, with the result that some concepts, methods, and boundaries remain largely undefined. This paper attempts to provide a rough conceptual map of the terrain of public health ethics. We begin by briefly defining public health and identifying general features of the field that are particularly relevant for a discussion of public health ethics.Public health is primarily concerned with the health of the entire population, rather than the health of individuals. Its features include an emphasis on the promotion of health and the prevention of disease and disability; the collection and use of epidemiological data, population surveillance, and other forms of empirical quantitative assessment; a recognition of the multidimensional nature of the determinants of health; and a focus on the complex interactions of many factors—biological, behavioral, social, and environmental—in developing effective interventions.

Calls are increasing for American health care to be organized as a learning health care system, defined by the Institute of Medicine as a health care system “in which knowledge generation is so embedded into the core of the practice of medicine that it is a natural outgrowth and product of the healthcare delivery process and leads to continual improvement in care.” We applaud this conception, and in this paper, we put forward a new ethics framework for it. No such framework has previously been articulated. The goals of our framework are twofold: to support the transformation to a learning health care system and to help ensure that learning activities carried out within such a system are conducted in an ethically acceptable fashion.

A key component of informed consent to participate in medical research includes understanding that research is not the same as treatment.

OBJECTIVES. Many contextual analyses that bridge the micro-level-macro-level gap in identifying risk factors for adverse outcomes have not used methods appropriate for multilevel data. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the application of appropriate multi-level analytic methods and discuss their implications for public health. METHODS. A previously published individual-level model of physical violence perpetrated by male partners during the childbearing year was reanalyzed to include variables describing the neighborhoods where the women resided. Logistic regression with estimation methods of the generalized estimating equation was used for the contextual analysis. To assess the advantages of the generalized estimating equation over conventional logistic regression, both were used for the two-level model. RESULTS. The regression coefficients from the contextual model differed from the betas obtained in the individual-level model. Not only were neighborhood-level variables related to the risk of partner-perpetrated violence, but the presence of these macro-level variables in the models modified the relationships of the individual-level variables to the risk of violence. CONCLUSIONS. Two-level models that include individual- and community-level factors may be beneficial for purposes of explanation in public health research.

Highlights A thoughtful vaccination campaign is critical to ensure COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Social, behavioral, and communication science is essential to such a campaign. Meaningful messages from trusted spokespersons can crowd out misinformation. COVID-19 vaccines must be available at familiar, convenient locations that feel safe. Transparent decisions and public oversight mechanisms strengthen vaccine confidence.

The rise of quality improvement research and comparative effectiveness research in health care settings constitutes progress toward the goal of what the Institute of Medicine has called a “learning healthcare system,” in which we are “drawing research closer to clinical practice by building knowledge development and application into each stage of the healthcare delivery process.” As clinical research and clinical practice move closer to a deliberately integrated system, the distinction between the two is increasingly blurred, although the sharp distinction in U.S. regulations and research ethics literature remains in place. In the 1970s and for two decades thereafter, this distinction was helpful: for some forms of research, it sheds light on which activities require ethical oversight. Research that is closely integrated with health care—notably, health delivery research—was then uncommon, however. That is no longer the case, and regulations and research ethics need to change to accommodate the new landscape. In this paper, we argue that conceptual, moral, and empirical problems surround the received view that we can and should draw sharp distinctions between clinical research and clinical practice. We start with the history of the research‐practice distinction in the reports of a U.S. national commission and in U.S. federal regulations, and then offer a critical assessment of five characterizations of research that have been used in policy documents and the scholarly literature to try to make a sharp distinction between research and practice. We challenge the clarity and the tenability of these characterizations as a way of distinguishing research from practice. We argue that the received view of the research‐practice distinction leads to overprotection of the rights and interests of patients in some cases and to underprotection in others. We contend that a new ethical foundation needs to be developed that facilitates both care and research likely to benefit patients, and that provides oversight that, rather than being based on a distinction between research and practice, is commensurate with risk and burden in both realms.

No abstract