The scientific method is built on the principle that nothing can ever be proved as definitively true. Rather, once a hypothesis is proposed, evidence can be generated in favor of the hypothesis or in favor of an alternative hypothesis. When enough evidence is gathered in one direction or the other, the original hypothesis is either accepted or debunked in favor of an alternative. As scientific work is always in flux, any previously accepted theory can always be overturned by new evidence.1, 2 Many epidemiologists accept Popper’s thesis that causality can never be truly proven; although, once enough reliable evidence has been accumulated, a causal relationship can be inferred.2
The question of what constitutes a cause is a matter of ongoing inquiry among epidemiologists. Causality is extremely complex and has been described with a number of metaphors, images and guidelines, and has been summarized simply by Susser as “something that makes a difference”.2 A primary objective in epidemiology is to make inferences identifying a causal variable for the outcome of interest. However, these inferences can only be valid if the accumulation of evidence is done within a causal framework, rather than an associational one. A critical description of the difference between associational and causal concepts insists that while an associational relationship can be defined by the distribution of observed variables, a causal relationship cannot be.3 This paper will use the lens of Susser’s three characteristics of a cause, association, time order, and direction to argue that a causal relationship between exposure and outcome can only be inferred from experimental epidemiologic studies. The basis for this argument is an examination of the counterfact...
... middle of paper ...
...th priority whose causes may not be perfectly understood and must not ignore the accumulation of evidence that calls for action, imperfect though it may be.1
Works Cited
1. Hill AB. The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58(5):295–300.
2. Aschengrau A, Seage GR. Essentials of epidemiology in public health. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2014.
3. Pearl J. An introduction to causal inference. Int J Biostat. 2010;6(2):Article 7. doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1203.
4. Susser ES. Psychiatric epidemiology: searching for the causes of mental disorders. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
5. Thorpe L. Causality in Epidemiology. 2014.
6. Kaufman JS, Poole C. Looking back on “causal thinking in the health sciences.” Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:101–119. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.101.
Shi L. & Singh D.A. (2011). The Nation’s Health. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
International Journal of Epidemiology 36.6 (2007): 1229-234. International Journal of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, 28 Sept. 2007. Web. The Web.
...y of international trends. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology , 45 (9), 889 - 897.
U.S. Public Health Service.(1999). The Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health. Retrieved June 5, 2000, from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/home.html. Veroff,J.,Douvan,E.,& Kulka,R.A.(1981).
Name the theory and carefully explain how this theory and its constructs are fit to address this health issue.
.... Recent developments in quantum physics, biology and information science have put us in a position where we question the uniqueness of the causal-mechanical model of science. But these developments, even though sciences based on non-causal concepts might dominate in the culture, would not eradicate the causal way people have viewed the world and themselves, but only relegate the concept of cause to the realm of metaphor, a rhetorical way of putting things. The concept of cause then would no longer be a scientific concept, but would still be alive in the culture. What brings a change in the general worldview then? This would be the question I still have to ask.
Mary Louise Fleming, E. P. (2009). Introduction to Public Health. Chatswood, NSW, Australia: Elsevier Australia.
Lahmann, N. A., Halfens, R. J. G., & Dassen, T. (2010). Impact of prevention structures and
Kahn, Ada P., and Jan Fawcett. The Encyclopedia of Mental Health. 2nd ed. New York: Facts On File, 2001.
In an effort to analyze the natural history of a disease, an epidemiological triangle is used. An epidemiological triangle is comprised of a susceptible host or individual, environment, and a causative agent. The host tends to have low immunity, poor nutrition, and a concurrent disease. The host tends to have poor
Technological advancement has often outperformed scientific knowledge associated with the causes that determine health. Increasing complications in social organization increase the possibilities by which multiple agents can disturb health, including factors such as those that risk physical health like venomous chemicals or radiation, restricted access to sanitary and pure natural resources, and the infinite amalgamation of them all. Decisions taken in areas apparently detached from health frequently have the prospect to have an impact on people’s health in either positive or negative manner due to a large number of links and connections in modern life. Health is an area comprised of highly intricate systems, which can be accidentally disturbed in unpredictable ways and end up in adverse health concerns that may be serious and irrevocable.
The mono-causal model of disease states that there has to be one sufficient putative cause present under certain circumstances, for a disease to occur, therefore, showing that every disease has only one cause. The first problem with this model according to Broadbent (2009:302-311), is that this model does not justify the restriction it puts on the number of causes of a disease. The second problem Broadbent (2009:302-311), shows is that of being unable to classify diseases caused by genetic disorders alongside those that are as a result of inherited dispositions. Thirdly, Broadbent (2009:302-311), says that this model does not account for cases whereby the cause for a disease is present, and yet an individual with this cause is healthy and not affected by the cause. For example, a woman who became known as Typhoid Mary lived for many years with the typhoid bacteria but did not have that typhoid fever, even-though the people she had infected died. Therefore shows that even-though Typhoid Mary had the cause of the disease which was the typhoid bacteria, she was healthy and not affec...
Kessler, R., Chiu, W., Demler, O., & Walters, E. (2005, June). The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America. Retrieved Febuary 13, 2011, from National Institute of Mental Health: http://www.nimh.nih.gov
Mental illness is the condition that significantly impede with an individual’s emotional, cognitive or social abilities (Savy and Sawyer, 2009). According to (Savy and Sawyer, 2009) neurological, metabolic, genetic and psychological causes are contributing factors for various types of mental illness like depression, schizophrenia, substance abuse and progression of condition. An elaborate system known as DSM-IV-TR gives a classification system that acts to separate mental illness into diagnostic categories based on the description of symptoms of illness (Savy and Sawyer, 2009). The exact primarily causes of mental illness are complicated, however, it seems to occur in a psychologically and biologically prone individual, in the trigger of environmental and social stress (Elder, Evans and Nizette, 2007).
Kessler, Chiu . et. al."The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America."NIMH RSS. National Institute of Mental Health , n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.