How Consequential Is Social Epidemiology? A Review of Recent Evidence

  • Nandi A
  • Harper S
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A number of authors have suggested that epidemiology generally, and social epidemiology in particular, should be producing more consequential research to inform specific interventions for improving population health. However, the extent to which current research in social epidemiology prioritizes consequentialist questions is unknown. To provide some quantitative evidence on this question, we collected all abstracts accepted for either an oral or poster presentation at the annual meetings of the Society for Epidemiologic Research between 2009 and 2013. We identified all abstracts relating to the study of social determinants of health and classified each abstract as consequentialist if it evaluated the effect of a specific intervention. Among 619 abstracts examining social determinants of health, we classified 41 studies (6.6 % of total) as consequentialist, with minimal year-to-year variation. Little of social epidemiology appears to be focused on consequential research. Changes in pedagogy and greater involvement with the policy community may help.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nandi, A., & Harper, S. (2015). How Consequential Is Social Epidemiology? A Review of Recent Evidence. Current Epidemiology Reports, 2(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-014-0031-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free