Citizenship and Social Responsibility in Surgery: A Review
Abstract
Importance: Social determinants of health have been shown to be key drivers of disparities in access to surgical care and surgical outcomes. Though the concept of social responsibility has received growing attention in the medical field, little has been published contextualizing social responsibility in surgery. In this narrative review, we define social responsibility as it relates to surgery, explore the duty of surgeons to society, and provide examples of social factors associated with adverse surgical outcomes and how they can be mitigated. Observations: The concept of social responsibility in surgery has deep roots in medical codes of ethics and evolved alongside changing views on human rights and the role of social factors in disease. The ethical duty of surgeons to society is based on the ethical principles of benevolence and justice and is grounded within the framework of the social contract. Surgeons have a responsibility to understand how factors such as patient demographics, the social environment, clinician awareness, and the health care system are associated with inequitable patient outcomes. Through education, we can empower surgeons to advocate for their patients, address the causes and consequences of surgical disparities, and incorporate social responsibility into their daily practice. Conclusions and Relevance: One of the greatest challenges in the field of surgery is ensuring that surgical care is provided in an equitable and sustainable way. Surgeons have a duty to understand the factors that lead to health care disparities and use their knowledge, skills, and privileged position to address these issues at the individual and societal level.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A spotlight on structural inequities and resultant health disparities, laid bare by the COVID-19 pandemic, has pushed physician advocacy to the forefront of national conversation.
“Since this initial review 5 years ago, a spotlight on structural inequities and resultant health disparities, laid bare by the COVID-19 pandemic, has pushed physician advocacy to the forefront of national conversation35–37, and many programs have published their GME advocacy curricula, sharing creative solutions to barriers as well as lessons learned in curricular implementation.”
From Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education: an Updated Systematic Review from 2017 to 2022 (2023) · cites this paper as [36]
Cites
Gruen, R. L., Campbell, E. G., & Blumenthal, D. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.20.2467 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
A Systematic Review of Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education
Howell, B. A., Kristal, R. B., Whitmire, L. R., Gentry, M., Rabin, T. L., & Rosenbaum, J. (2019) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05184-3 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Perspective: Is It Time for Advocacy Training in Medical Education?
Croft, D., Jay, S. J., Meslin, E. M., Gaffney, M. M., & Odell, J. D. (2012) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31826232bc · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education: an Updated Systematic Review from 2017 to 2022
Agrawal, N., Lucier, J., Ogawa, R., & Arons, A. (2023) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08244-x · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- Janeway, M., Wilson, S., Sanchez, S. E., Arora, T. K., & Dechert, T.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Augusta University (US)
- Venue
- JAMA Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2022-06-01
- Volume
- 157
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 532
- ISSN
- 2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4226414664
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JAMA Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Health and Surgery
- Keywords
- social responsibility, surgery, social determinants of health, health care disparities, surgical outcomes, access to surgical care, medical ethics, social contract, justice, benevolence, health equity, surgeon education
- MeSH terms
- Citizenship, Humans, Social Responsibility, Surgeons
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review