Deciphering the Surgeon General’s “Parents Under Pressure” Report (Part 1 of ?)

Come with me on an adventure, will you?

As a healthcare professional, and PR person, and parent, of course I have lots of opinions about the Surgeon General’s buzzy new advisory, Parents Under Pressure. It’s a 35-page whopper about the poor state of mental health and well-being of parents in America. It’s also heavy on the buzzwords, light on the action.

This one’s going to be a doozy: get ready for a multi-parter. However, it’s well worth the analysis. WHY? Shall we decipher it together? Let’s dive in.

The 101: Hot takes on the report’s “About the Report”

Have you seen the report? Here’s how the Surgeon General describes it:

“This Advisory calls attention to the importance of parental stress, mental health and well-being, stressors unique to parenting, and the bidirectional relationship between parental mental health and child outcomes.”

Off to a good start. As a parent who burned out of a high-pressure job, I can identify with this deeply. So can nearly all of my friends. However…my colleagues and friends who aren’t parents are also suffering. We’ve been raised by a generation of parents who encouraged us to “have it all,” while they simultaneously designed societal structures with the precision of a Six Sigma black belt. Off the bat, my hope is that this report addresses the ripple affect that poor structures have on parenting and healthcare. The problems are systemic and generational, impacting not just parents, but our entire society.

“This document is not an exhaustive review of the literature.”

Fair. This is a CYA. It’s PR speak for “don’t come at me” if we missed something. It’ll be interesting to take a look at their sources to see if we can spot any interesting trends (or obvious gaps) in their reporting.

Rather, it was developed through a substantial review of the available evidence, primarily found via electronic searches of research articles published in English and resources suggested by a wide range of subject matter experts, with priority given to, but not limited to, meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews. It also offers actionable recommendations for the institutions that can reduce stress and support the mental health and well-being of parents and caregivers including communities and schools, employers, and policymakers, as well as for what parents and caregivers, family and friends, health and social service professionals, and researchers can do. For additional background and to read other Surgeon General’s Advisories, visit SurgeonGeneral.gov.”

Did a lawyer write this?

Actually, probably. Not the first draft, but they definitely had a heavy hand in the editing. Government officials are generally some of the most well-coached and intentional thought leaders when it comes to writing, speaking, and timing. That can make their writing both fascinating and frustrating. On one hand, they’re shining a light on some of our country’s most painful issues. On the other hand, you can’t take the writing at face value. There’s nearly always an ulterior motive. The easy ones to spot are when they’re surrounded by “legalese.”

“… a substantial review of the available evidence, primarily found via electronic searches of research articles published in English and resources suggested by a wide range of subject matter experts, with priority given to, but not limited to, meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews…"

This sure is a mouthful. The first half is a typical description you’d find in a clinical literature review: they looked at research articles, interviewed subject matter experts, analyzed trends, etc. It’s the, “…with priority given to, but not limited to…” that gets me. It screams, “we don’t want to be sued because of our methodology.”

And finally, they tell us what a public health advisory is and should do:

“A Surgeon General’s Advisory is a public statement that calls the American people’s attention to an urgent public health issue and provides recommendations for how it should be addressed. Advisories are reserved for significant public health challenges that require the nation’s immediate awareness and action.

Bravo! This helps make the document more accessible for a variety of readers.

Hot takes

• Per usual, I can’t wait to dive into the details. I’m curious to learn if the document will continue to read accessibly, or if our lawyer friends included too many buzzwords for meaning.

• Action. I have a vested interest in this of course, but I’m eager to see their recommendations. Hoping for a systemic analysis, steps for change, and minimal fluff. Let’s cross our fingers.

• Has PR just become lawyers talking to other lawyers through veiled threats embedded in media advisories? For discussion. (Sorry, lawyer friends.)

  ###