PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9595342

Whose epidemiology, whose health?

S Wing
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Simplistic claims about the objectivity of science have been challenged from a variety of perspectives. Evaluation of the external context of production of knowledge and the methodological approaches to posing questions and assembling evidence shows that there is no pure "science"; rather, all scientific knowledge is shaped by the social history of its production. Examples are given of how quantitative concepts in modern epidemiology influence the recognition of the causes of disease. The author uses the phenomenon of intensive swine production by vertically integrated agribusiness to illustrate how broad problems such as environmental racism, agricultural determinants of nutrition, loss of natural resources, and conditions conducive to emergence of new diseases are hidden by epidemiological approaches that fit into corporate policy perspectives. It is critically important to ask who produces epidemiological knowledge, and whose health is promoted by that knowledge.

Explore related subjects

BiasEpidemiologic StudiesHumansPoliticsPublic HealthResearch DesignRiskRisk FactorsUnited StatesJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Wing. 1998. Whose epidemiology, whose health?. https://doi.org/10.2190/y3ge-nqck-0lnr-t126

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2001

Evaluation of DNA match probability in criminal case.

The new emphasis on quantification of evidence has led to perplexing courtroom decisions and it has been difficult for forensic scientists to pursue logical arguments. Especially, for evaluating DNA evidence, though both the genetic relationship for two compared persons and the examined locus system should be considered, the understanding for this has not yet drawn much attention. In this paper, we suggest to calculate the match probability by using coancestry coefficient when the family relationship is considered, and thus the performances of the identification values depending on the calculation of match probability are compared under various situations.

Bias↗
PubMed2001

Empirical evidence of correlated biases in dietary assessment instruments and its implications.

Multiple-day food records or 24-hour recalls are currently used as "reference" instruments to calibrate food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and to adjust findings from nutritional epidemiologic studies for measurement error. The common adjustment is based on the critical requirements that errors in the reference instrument be independent of those in the FFQ and of true intake. When data on urinary nitrogen level, a valid reference biomarker for nitrogen intake, are used, evidence suggests that a dietary report reference instrument does not meet these requirements. In this paper, the authors introduce a new model that includes, for both the FFQ and the dietary report reference instrument, group-specific biases related to true intake and correlated person-specific biases. Data were obtained from a dietary assessment validation study carried out among 160 women at the Dunn Clinical Nutrition Center, Cambridge, United Kingdom, in 1988-1990. Using the biomarker measurements and dietary report measurements from this study, the authors compare the new model with alternative measurement error models proposed in the literature and demonstrate that it provides the best fit to the data. The new model suggests that, for these data, measurement error in the FFQ could lead to a 51% greater attenuation of true nutrient effect and the need for a 2.3 times larger study than would be estimated by the standard approach. The implications of the results for the ability of FFQ-based epidemiologic studies to detect important diet-disease associations are discussed.

Bias↗