ImportanceSocially responsible surgery (SRS) integrates surgery and public health, providing a framework for research, advocacy, education, and clinical practice to address the social barriers of health that decrease surgical access and worsen surgical outcomes in underserved patient populations. These patients face disparities in both health and in health care, which can be effectively addressed by surgeons in collaboration with allied health professionals.ObjectiveWe reviewed the current state of surgical access and outcomes of underserved populations in American rural communities, American urban communities, and in low- and middle-income countries.Evidence reviewWe searched PubMed using standardized search terms and reviewed the reference lists of highly relevant articles. We reviewed the reports of two recent global surgery commissions.ConclusionThere is an opportunity for scholarship in rural surgery, urban surgery, and global surgery to be unified under the concept of SRS. The burden of surgical disease and the challenges to management demonstrate that achieving optimal health outcomes requires more than excellent perioperative care. Surgeons can and should regularly address the social determinants of health experienced by their patients. Formalized research and training opportunities are needed to meet the growing enthusiasm among surgeons and trainees to develop their practice as socially responsible surgeons.

Natural disasters can overwhelm the domestic response of a country, leaving it dependent on external humanitarian relief. The Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) of the United Nations centralises humanitarian funding and thus allows for a rapid response. This study combined data to analyse the factors that affected the allocation of CERF funding to countries that suffered a natural disaster between 2007 and 2013. It generated descriptive statistics and information on relative risks, and performed regressions of CERF funding across countries. There were 4,346 disasters in total in 188 countries between 2007 and 2013. CERF provided USD 2.98 billion to 87 countries, comprising 3.3 per cent of their total humanitarian funding. CERF more frequently supplied aid to countries in North Africa and the Middle East, and to those that had suffered geophysical disasters. Appropriately, it funds vulnerable countries experiencing severe natural disasters, yet its funding may be affected by variables beyond severity and vulnerability. Further investigation is warranted, therefore.