Search

Part I of this paper traced the evolution of modern epidemiology in terms of three eras, each with its dominant paradigm, culminating in the present era of chronic disease epidemiology with its paradigm, the black box. This paper sees the close of the present era and foresees a new era of eco-epidemioiogy in which the deployment of a different paradigm will be crucial. Here a paradigm is advocated for the emergent era. Encompassing many levels of organization-molecular and societal as well as individual-this paradigm, termed Chinese boxes, aims to integrate more than a single level in design, analysis, and interpretation. Such a paradigm could sustain and refine a public health-oriented epidemiology. But preventing a decline of creative epidemiology in this new era will require more than a cogent scientific paradigm. Attention will have to be paid to the social processes that foster a cohesive and humane discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article attempts to contribute to the debate on the future of epidemiology by combining Thomas Kuhn's ideas on scientific paradigms with the author's observations on some epidemiology textbooks. The author's interpretations were based on his readings of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, epidemiology textbooks, and papers on the future of epidemiology. Thomas Kuhn's view is that sciences mostly work with a single paradigm driven by exemplars of successful work, and that proposals for paradigm change are resisted. Sciences that are maturing or changing do not have a dominant paradigm. Epidemiology textbooks showed diversity in their concepts, content, and approach. Most exemplars related to etiologic research rather than public health practice. One key focus of the recent controversy regarding the role of epidemiology has been the increasing inability of epidemiology to solve socially based public health problems. Kuhn's views help explain the polarization of views expressed. Kuhn's philosophy of science offers insights into controversies such as whether a paradigm shift is needed or imminent and the gap between epidemiology and public health practice. Interaction between science philosophers, epidemiologists, and public health practitioners may be valuable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Despite the widespread use of ecologic analysis in epidemiologic research and health planning, little attention has been given by health scientists and practitioners to the methodological aspects of this approach. This paper reviews the major types of ecologic study designs, the analytic methods appropriate for each, the limitations of ecologic data for making causal inferences and what can be done to minimize these problems, and the relative advantages of ecologic analysis. Numerous examples are provided to illustrate the important principles and methods. A careful distinction is made between ecologic studies that generate or test etiologic hypotheses and those that evaluate the impact of intervention programs or policies (given adequate knowledge of disease etiology). Failure to recognize this difference in the conduct of ecologic studies can lead to results that are not very informative or that are misinterpreted by others. (Am J Public Health 1982: 72:1336-1344.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today, our understanding of approach to the exogenous causes of cancer are dominated by epidemiological practices that came into widespread use after World War II. This paper examines the forces, considerations, and controversies that shaped postwar risk factor epidemiology in the United States. It is argued that, for all of the new capabilities it brought, this risk factor epidemiology has left us with less of a clinical eye for unrecognized cancer hazards, especially from limited and localized exposures in the workplace. The focus here is on Wilhelm Hueper, author of the first textbook on occupational cancer (1942). Hueper became the foremost spokesman for earlier identification practices centering on occupational exposures. The new epidemiological methods and associated institutions that arose in the 1940s and 1950s bore an unsettled relation to earlier claims and methods that some, Hueper among them, interpreted as a challenge. Hueper's critique of the new epidemiology identified some of its limitations and potentially debilitating consequences that remain with us today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. This paper reviews Russia's health crisis, financing, and organization and public health reform needs. Methods. The structure, policy, supply of services, and health status indicators of Russia's health system are examined. Results. Longevity is declining; mortality rates from cardiovascular diseases and trauma are high and rising; maternal and infant mortality are high. Vaccine-preventable diseases have reappeared in epidemic form. Nutrition status is problematic. conclusions. The crisis relates to Russia's economic transition, but it also goes deep into the former Soviet health system. The epidemiologic transition from a predominance of infectious to non infectious diseases was addressed by increasing the quantity of services. The health system lacked mechanisms for epidemiologic or economic analysis and accountability to the public. Policy and funding favored hospitals over ambulatory care and individual routine checkups over community-oriented preventive approaches. Reform since 1991 has centered on national health insurance and decentralized management of services. A national health strategy to address fundamental public health problems is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecological studies have been evaluated in epidemiological contexts in terms of the "ecological fallacy." Although the empirical evidence for a lack of comparability between correlations derived from ecological- and individual-level analyses is compelling, the conceptual meaning of the ecological fallacy remains problematic. This paper argues that issues in cross-level inference can be usefully conceptualized as validity problems, problems not peculiar to ecological-level analyses. Such an approach increases the recognition of both potential inference problems in individual-level studies and the unique contributions of ecological variables. This, in turn, expands the terrain for the location of causes for disease and interventions to improve the public's health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper provides an overview of problems in multivariate modeling of epidemiologic data, and examines some proposed solutions. Special attention is given to the task of model selection, which involves selection of the model form, selection of the variables to enter the model, and selection of the form of these variables in the model. Several conclusions are drawn, among them: a) model and variable forms should be selected based on regression diagnostic procedures, in addition to goodness-of-fit tests; b) variable-selection algorithms in current packaged programs, such as conventional stepwise regression, can easily lead to invalid estimates and tests of effect; and c) variable selection is better approached by direct estimation of the ° of confounding produced by each variable than by significance-testing algorithms. As a general rule. before using a model to estimate effects, one should evaluate the assumptions implied by the model against both the data and prior information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents various research papers on epidemiology and discusses public health of the aged in the United States. The history of epidemiology and public health is replete with examples of ingenious and brilliant use of available data that were used to answer important questions and that yielded major public health advances. The Davis report on living arrangements is a sophisticated analysis that reveals the limitations of secondary data, albeit more subtle ones, when one are asking complex questions. If the data reflects a national sample, having national data becomes strength of the study. It is important to note that "secondary data" is an imprecise label that covers a great diversity of types and sources of data. The data set has information on some additional variables not previously examined. It becomes important to look at these variables as possible controls or as risk factors.