History Of Epidemiology Essay
1. Susser M, Susser E. Choosing a future for epidemiology: II. From black box to Chinese boxes and eco‐epidemiology. Am J Public Health 199686674–677. [PMC free article][PubMed]
2. Kaplan G A, Lynch J W. Whither studies on the socioeconomic foundations of population health? Am J Public Health 1997871409–1411. [PMC free article][PubMed]
3. Kuh D, Ben‐Shlomo Y, Lynch J. et al Life course epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health 200357778–783. [PMC free article][PubMed]
4. Link B G, Phelan J. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J Health Soc Behav. 1995;Spec No80–94. [PubMed]
5. Pearce N. Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology, and public health. Am J Public Health 199686678–683. [PMC free article][PubMed]
6. Susser M, Susser E. Choosing a future for epidemiology: I. Eras and paradigms. Am J Public Health 199686668–673. [PMC free article][PubMed]
7. Krieger N. Epidemiology and the web of causation: has anyone seen the spider? Soc Sci Med 199439887–903. [PubMed]
8. Lynch J, Smith G D. A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology. Annu Rev Public Health 2005261–35. [PubMed]
9. Schneiderman N. Integrating behavioral and social sciences with public health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001
10. Kaufman J S, Cooper R S. Seeking causal explanations in social epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 1999150113–120. [PubMed]
11. Berkman L F, Kawachi I. A historical framework for social epidemiology. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds. Social epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20003–12.
12. Kneipp S M, Drevdahl D J. Problems with parsimony in research on socioeconomic determinants of health. Adv Nurs Sci 200326162–172. [PubMed]
13. Lynch J, Kaplan G A. Socioeconomic position. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds. Social epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 200013–35.
14. Kawachi I. Social epidemiology. Soc Sci Med 2002541739–1741. [PubMed]
15. Krieger N. A glossary for social epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health 200155693–700. [PMC free article][PubMed]
16. Renaud M. [From social epidemiology to the sociology of prevention: 15 years' research on the social etiology of disease]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 1987353–19. [PubMed]
17. McQueen D V, Siegrist J. Social factors in the etiology of chronic disease: an overview. Soc Sci Med 198216353–367. [PubMed]
18. Heymann D L. Social, behavioural and environmental factors and their impact on infectious disease outbreaks. J Public Health Policy 200526133–139. [PubMed]
19. Farmer P. Social inequalities and emerging infectious diseases. Emerg Infect Dis 19962259–269. [PMC free article][PubMed]
20. Bates I, Fenton C, Gruber J. et al Vulnerability to malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS infection and disease. Part II: Determinants operating at environmental and institutional level. Lancet Infect Dis 20044368–375. [PubMed]
21. Ali S H. A socio‐ecological autopsy of the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario, Canada. Soc Sci Med 2004582601–2612. [PubMed]
22. Kaplan G A. What's wrong with social epidemiology, and how can we make it better? Epidemiol Rev 200426124–135. [PubMed]
23. World Health Organization World Health Report, 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002
24. Poundstone K E, Strathdee S A, Celentano D D. The social epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Epidemiol Rev 20042622–35. [PubMed]
25. Myer L, Ehrlich R I, Susser E S. Social epidemiology in South Africa. Epidemiol Rev 200426112–123. [PubMed]
26. Lazzarini Z, Klitzman R. HIV and the law: integrating law, policy, and social epidemiology. J Law Med Ethics 200230533–547. [PubMed]
27. Persson L, Ostgergren P O, Hanson B S. et al Social network, social support and the rate of decline of CD4 lymphocytes in asymptomatic HIV‐positive homosexual men. Scand J Public Health 200230184–190. [PubMed]
28. Larson A. The social epidemiology of Africas AIDS epidemic. Afr Aff (Lond) 1990895–25.
29. Lester B. The social context of HIV transmission in the African‐American community. Ethn Dis 19933387–394. [PubMed]
30. WHO Collaborative Study Group An international comparative study of HIV prevalence and risk behaviour among drug injectors in 13 cities. Bull Narc 19934519–46. [PubMed]
31. Ronald A, Ndinya‐achola J O, Ngugi E N. et al Social epidemiology in Africa: slowing the heterosexual transmission of AIDS. AIDS Soc 199127–8. [PubMed]
32. Perry M J. Gender, race and economic perspectives on the social epidemiology of HIV infection: implications for prevention. J Prim Prev 19981997–104.
33. Drucker E. Communities at risk: the social epidemiology of AIDS in New York City. In: Ulack R, Skinner WF, eds. AIDS and the social sciences: common threads. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 199145–63.
34. Stall R, Catania J A, Pollack L. The social epidemiology of AIDS and HIV infection among older Americans. In: Riley MW, Ory MG, Zabloysky D, eds. AIDS in an aging society: what we need to know. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co, 198960–76.
35. DakerWhite G, Barlow D. Heterosexual gonorrhoea at St Thomas'. 2. Sexual behaviour and sources of infection. Int J STD AIDS 19978102–108. [PubMed]
36. DakerWhite G, Barlow D. Heterosexual gonorrhoea at St Thomas. 1. Patient characteristics and implications for targeted STD and HIV prevention strategies. Int J STD AIDS 1997832–35. [PubMed]
37. Pollock J I, Golding J. Social epidemiology of chickenpox in two British national cohorts. J Epidemiol Community Health 199347274–281. [PMC free article][PubMed]
38. Pontes R J. [Measles in rural workers: a methodological essay in social epidemiology]. Rev Saude Publica 199024323–331. [PubMed]
39. Worrall E, Basu S, Hanson K. Is malaria a disease of poverty? A review of the literature. Trop Med Int Health 2005101047–1059. [PubMed]
40. Veldhuyzen van Zanten S J. Do socio‐economic status, marital status and occupation influence the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 19959(Suppl 2)41–44. [PubMed]
41. Ackermann L, de K. Social factors that make South African women vulnerable to HIV infection. Health Care Women Int 200223163–172. [PubMed]
42. Chattopadhyay A, McKaig R G. Social development of commercial sex workers in India: an essential step in HIV/AIDS prevention. AIDS Patient Care STDs 200418159–168. [PubMed]
43. Fournier A M, Carmichael C. Socioeconomic influences on the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus infection: the hidden risk. Arch Fam Med 19987214–217. [PubMed]
44. Parker R G, Easton D, Klein C H. Structural barriers and facilitators in HIV prevention: a review of international research. AIDS 200014(Suppl 1)S22–S32. [PubMed]
45. Schoepf B G. AIDS action‐research with women in Kinshasa, Zaire. Soc Sci Med 1993371401–1413. [PubMed]
46. Sobo E J. Inner‐city women and AIDS: the psycho‐social benefits of unsafe sex. Cult Med Psychiatry 199317455–485. [PubMed]
47. Zierler S, Krieger N. Reframing women's risk: social inequalities and HIV infection. Annu Rev Public Health 199718401–436. [PubMed]
48. Shayne V T, Kaplan B J. Double victims: poor women and AIDS. Women Health 19911721–37. [PubMed]
49. Zaidi S A. Poverty and disease: need for structural change. Soc Sci Med 198827119–127. [PubMed]
50. Bastos F I, Szwarcwald C L. [AIDS and pauperization: principal concepts and empirical evidence]. Cad Saude Publica 20001665–76. [PubMed]
51. Gillies P, Tolley K, Wolstenholme J. Is AIDS a disease of poverty? AIDS Care 19968351–363. [PubMed]
52. Manfredi C. Can the resurgence of malaria be partially attributed to structural adjustment programmes? Parassitologia 199941389–390. [PubMed]
53. Lashley F R. Factors contributing to the occurrence of emerging infectious diseases. Biol Res Nurs 20034258–267. [PubMed]
54. Korte R, Rehle T, Merkle A. Strategies to maintain health in the Third World. Trop Med Parasitol 199142428–432. [PubMed]
55. Jones C O, Williams H A. The social burden of malaria: what are we measuring? Am J Trop Med Hyg 200471156–161. [PubMed]
56. Grund J P, Friedman S R, Stern L S. et al Syringe‐mediated drug sharing among injecting drug users: patterns, social context and implications for transmission of blood‐borne pathogens. Soc Sci Med 199642691–703. [PubMed]
57. Friedman S R, Neaigus A, Des Jarlais D C. et al Social intervention against AIDS among injecting drug users. Br J Addict 199287393–404. [PubMed]
58. Hughes R A. Drug injectors and the cleaning of needles and syringes. Eur Addict Res 2000620–30. [PubMed]
59. Miller M, Neaigus A. Networks, resources and risk among women who use drugs. Soc Sci Med 200152967–978. [PubMed]
60. Shrier L A. Sexually transmitted diseases in adolescents: biologic, cognitive, psychologic, behavioral, and social issues. Adolesc Med Clin 200415215–234. [PubMed]
61. Barat L M, Palmer N, Basu S. et al Do malaria control interventions reach the poor? A view through the equity lens. Am J Trop Med Hyg 200471174–178. [PubMed]
62. Castilla R E, Sawyer D O. Malaria rates and fate: a socioeconomic study of malaria in Brazil. Soc Sci Med 1993371137–1145. [PubMed]
63. Davies P D. The world‐wide increase in tuberculosis: how demographic changes, HIV infection and increasing numbers in poverty are increasing tuberculosis. Ann Med 200335235–243. [PubMed]
64. Mori T. [Tuberculosis and society]. Kekkaku 20037895–100. [PubMed]
65. Davies P D. The effects of poverty and ageing on the increase in tuberculosis. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 199954168–171. [PubMed]
66. Cohen S. Keynote Presentation at the Eight International Congress of Behavioral Medicine: the Pittsburgh common cold studies: psychosocial predictors of susceptibility to respiratory infectious illness. Int J Behav Med 200512123–131. [PubMed]
67. Bor D H, Epstein P R. Pathogenesis of respiratory infection in the disadvantaged. Semin Respir Infect 19916194–203. [PubMed]
68. Crompton D W, Savioli L. Intestinal parasitic infections and urbanization. Bull WHO 1993711–7. [PMC free article][PubMed]
69. Stuver S O, Boschi‐Pinto C, Trichopoulos D. Infection with hepatitis B and C viruses, social class and cancer. IARC Sci Publ 1997319–324. [PubMed]
70. Boffetta P. Infection with Helicobacter pylori and parasites, social class and cancer. IARC Sci Publ 1997325–329. [PubMed]
71. Mata L J. The environment of the malnourished child. Basic Life Sci 1976745–66. [PubMed]
72. Powles J. Changes in disease patterns and related social trends. Soc Sci Med 199235377–387. [PubMed]
73. Marx R. Social factors and trachoma: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 19892923–34. [PubMed]
74. Cohen S, Doyle W J, Skoner D P. et al Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA 19972771940–1944. [PubMed]
75. Keiser J, Utzinger J, Caldas de Castro M. et al Urbanization in sub‐saharan Africa and implication for malaria control. Am J Trop Med Hyg 200471118–127. [PubMed]
76. Trape J F. Malaria and urbanization in central Africa: the example of Brazzaville. Part I: Description of the town and review of previous surveys. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1987;81(Suppl 2)1–9. [PubMed]
77. Ladnyi I D, Naiden P E, Klimchenko I Z. et al [Effect of the economic activity of man on natural foci of plague]. J Microbiol Epidemiol Immunobiol 19753–10. [PubMed]
78. Clarke L L, Coward R T. A multivariate assessment of the effects of residence on infant mortality. J Rural Health 19917246–265. [PubMed]
79. Khaw A J, Salama P, Burkholder B. et al HIV risk and prevention in emergency‐affected populations: a review. Disasters 200024181–197. [PubMed]
80. Mosley A. Does HIV or poverty cause AIDS? Biomedical and epidemiological perspectives. Theor Med Bioeth 200425399–421. [PubMed]
81. Bent S, Shojania K G, Saint S. The use of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in infection control and hospital epidemiology. Am J Infect Control 200432246–254. [PubMed]
82. Bero L A, Jadad A R. How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Ann Intern Med 199712737–42. [PubMed]
83. Berlin J A, Colditz G A. The role of meta‐analysis in the regulatory process for foods, drugs, and devices. JAMA 1999281830–834. [PubMed]
PEOPLE'S EPIDEMIOLOGY LIBRARY
PEL ESSAYS ON EPIDEMIOLOGY
S.D. Walter, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
Essay # 1:
Introduction to Epidemiology
This essay provides a brief summary of what epidemiology is, what it is used for and the kind of people and skills required to do it. We will touch on the history of the subject, and identify some examples of important findings from epidemiology studies.
Definition and uses of epidemiology
Epidemiology is the study of health and disease in populations. [Porta, 2008] Epidemiology studies are used to identify which people might be more or less likely to get certain diseases, whether the rates of disease are changing over time, and whether some geographic areas of a community might be at higher risk of disease than other areas.
In the next essays, it will become clear how epidemiology uses comparisons between groups of people, and thereby thinks in terms of populations, to arrive at its conclusions. The results of epidemiologic studies are very important for the administration of health care systems. Public health authorities frequently use this information to monitor the state of health of a population. They may also base public health programs for the early detection or prevention of disease on epidemiology findings.
The epidemiologic approach is equally important for clinical medicine. Then, the populations studied are patients, their diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. It provides much of the input needed in evidence-based medicine.[Sackett et al., 1996] An evidence-based framework is often used to develop reliable guidelines and provides advice to doctors about which are likely to be the best diagnostic tests and treatments for their patients.
Epidemiologists are usually involved in the design of research studies, in data collection for those studies, and in the analysis and interpretation of the results. They are also increasingly involved in knowledge transfer activities, which are communicating the results of their studies to assist health care policy makers, clinicians, and the general public.
Epidemiologic evidence is fundamental in the development of recommendations to the community about healthy lifestyles, and there can also be commercial implications, such as in developing the health messages and labels that may be attached to foods and other consumer products such as tobacco. Likewise, clinical epidemiologic evidence is the basis of developing guidelines for clinical practice.
Skills required to do epidemiology
The discipline of epidemiology involves many different aspects. Typically, epidemiologic studies require the expertise of doctors, biologists, biochemists or other scientists to inform the biological aspects of the disease or clinical question being studied.
Many epidemiologic studies are highly quantitative, and they draw on the skills of biostatisticians and information technologists to design appropriate ways to capture and store the data that is needed, and to carry out statistical analysis of the results. Additionally, qualitative approaches are often used in epidemiology, for instance, involving social scientists who determine important themes in the perception of a particular disease concern, and how the community might respond.
Because many scientific and other disciplines are required in epidemiology, the background and training of epidemiologists varies considerably. Some epidemiologists begin their careers in a laboratory science (for instance, chemistry or microbiology), but later move into doing epidemiologic studies in the general community.
Similarly, many doctors, nurses and other health professionals begin working in clinical practice, but then go on to work in epidemiology and public health, treating the whole population as their patient, and focussing on patient populations. Still others, such as biostatisticians, may begin their training in mathematics and statistics, and become involved in epidemiology through the development of appropriate study designs and methods of data analysis for epidemiologic data.
Epidemiology in history
Epidemiology has both a long and a short history. It might be argued that Hippocrates (a variant of this famous oath is taken by new doctors almost all over the world) was an epidemiologist, because he had a hypothesis that some diseases were caused by environmental factors that act upon human populations.
On the other hand, epidemiology as we know it today has a short history since there were no real attempts at comparisons between groups to consider illnesses in populations before the 17th century. In the 17th century John Graunt carried out a series of analyses on the newly implemented “Bills of Mortality” in London, which for the first time systematically determined which were the leading causes of death.[Graunt, 1662] Lists of numbers of deaths from various causes, as they were understood in those times, including examples such as “Frighted”, “Griping in the Guts” and “Worms”, were published every week as a kind of early warning signal for the onset of plague. More importantly, from our present-day view, he showed that overall mortality evolved smoothly from year to year while mortality from plague demonstrated peaks, suggesting that it had an environmental cause that came and went.
Another well known pioneer or epidemiologic thinking was James Lind who compared six pairs of sick seamen with different treatments in each member of the pair and observed that oranges and lemons were effective treatment for scurvy.[Lind, 1853]
In London, some 200 years after Graunt, the epidemiologist John Snow’s studies compared the mortality from cholera between the clients of two companies providing water in London.[Snow, 1855] The study confirmed his hypothesis that getting cholera was somehow linked to contaminated drinking water. The specific inquiry of a cluster of cases which occurred in the vicinity of Broad Street famously led to the removal of the handle of the Broad Street water pump. This was a controversial move at the time, because several other theories about the cause of cholera existed, including the notion that living at a low altitude would increase the population’s exposure to dangerous vapours. We know nowadays that Snow was right, and the provision of a clean and secure drinking water supply was one of the main elements of a major movement towards improving public health during the 19th century and subsequently.[Vandenbroucke et al, 1991]
Other important examples of 19th century epidemiology include the study of Dr Pierre Louis on the efficacy of bloodletting in the treatment of pneumonia [Louis 1835] and the intervention of Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrating the effectiveness of hand washing in the prevention of puerperal fever [Carter, 2005][Semmelweis, 1861]
More recently, in the mid-20th century, a number of epidemiologic studies were central in the discovery that smoking could increase the risk of lung cancer. Some compared the frequency of smoking in cases of lung cancer and carefully chosen controls [Wynder and Graham, 1950][Doll and Hill, 1950][Levin et al., 1950] Other compared the occurrence of lung cancer in smokers and non smokers.[Link to [Doll and Hill, 1954, 1964] [Hammond & Horn, 1958]
Although this idea is now well accepted, at the time it too was controversial and much contested by scientists [Fisher, 1959;Stolley, 1991] and to Berkson [Berkson, 1946] and the tobacco industry.[US surgeon general report, 1964] Epidemiology studies over the years since then have confirmed the existence of numerous adverse health effects of smoking, including, heart disease and several other types of cancer. [Pettiti, 2001]
Epidemiology in the community
Use of the epidemiologic method is an important practical way to study health and disease, because epidemiologists work in the general community.[Holland et al., 2007] Epidemiologists can be found working in the general population, based in hospitals or local health units, or working for government or commercial enterprises such as the pharmaceutical industry. They all have in common that they are working on studying health events in various groups of people, making comparisons over time and between various places. Laboratory scientists and research doctors often use experimental designs for their studies, focusing on one particular risk-factor and one outcome, in such a way that all other risk-factors are suitably controlled, often by the use of randomisation: random numbers, i.e., pure chance determines who will receive what treatment.
In contrast, epidemiologists may be engaged in studying several diseases and several risk factors for those diseases simultaneously, and sometimes refined study designs are required to do so. Epidemiology is characterized by attempts to deal with the numerous determinants of disease in the community; epidemiologists are often concerned with trying to isolate the association between one risk factor and one particular health outcome while taking into account other important associations that exist in people’s daily lives. Epidemiologists do not limit themselves to factors that are measured at the individual level. They also measure factors at the community level, and integrate both type of information in their analysis.[Susser, 1998, McMichael, 1999 Diex-Roux,1998] They also take into account the fact that some factors may have different effects at different stages of life, and that the effects of exposures at a younger age may only become manifest at an older age.[Kuh & Shlomo, 2004]
While important and useful information can emerge from laboratory studies and randomised clinical trials of treatment, the findings from those studies may not be generalisable to the population at large, and here epidemiology has an advantage by directly studying what is actually occurring in the general population. Furthermore, many health-related questions of interest, for example the health effects of smoking, cannot be studied in humans using experimental randomisation, and we are therefore obliged to consider the problem by comparing groups of people, using the study designs that are explained in essay.
In some special circumstances, epidemiologists can use randomisation in the community. For instance, in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of screening for the early detection of cancer, they might randomise portions of the population or particular individuals to be offered screening or not, and then observe their subsequent experience of cancer detection and prognosis.[Shapiro et al., 1988] However, this type of study is unusual because of the large sample sizes and extended follow-up periods that are required to do them.
Instead, epidemiologists are more usually concerned with studying health effects in people as they live their daily lives but without the ability to randomise people to categories of risk exposure. Studying health effects in people who go about their usual daily lives is one major advantage over other scientific methods, but it is also one that presents epidemiology with some of its greatest challenges. In the community, epidemiology is instrumental in detecting and tracking epidemics of infectious diseases, like flu, HIV, measles of outbreaks like food poisoning.
Epidemiology in the clinic
One of the greater triumphs of epidemiology was the acceptance of its instruments, i.e., its study designs, as ’arbiters’ in clinical medicine: a great impact was made when the randomized controlled trial became accepted as the gold standard for deciding which therapy works best.[Streptomycin Trial, 1948] Similarly, adverse effects of treatments are nowadays commonly researched using epidemiologic studies, i.e., the same study designs as were used to assess how much smoking causes lung cancer.[James Lind Library]