Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

What’s Wrong with Social Epidemiology, and How Can We Make It Better?

What’s Wrong with Social Epidemiology, and How Can We Make It Better? Epidemiologic Reviews Vol. 26, 2004 Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Printed in U.S.A. All rights reserved DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxh010 1,2 George A. Kaplan Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Received for publication December 11, 2003; accepted for publication February 20, 2004. INTRODUCTION social, and therefore its remedies must also be economic and social” (4, p. 129), there is no question that there has been It is perhaps ironic that an epidemiologist who has been enormous growth in the study of these economic and social working in the field of social epidemiology for over a quarter forces on health and disease. Figure 1, which plots growth of a century, and who directs a center focused on social since 1966 in use of the term “social epidemiology” in article epidemiology, should coin a title suggesting that there is titles, abstracts, and keywords, graphically illustrates this something “wrong” with social epidemiology. Perhaps it is increased interest. Beginning in the early 1980s, growth of even inopportune, as it could provide ammunition to those http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Epidemiologic Reviews Oxford University Press

What’s Wrong with Social Epidemiology, and How Can We Make It Better?

Epidemiologic Reviews , Volume 26 (1) – Jul 1, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/what-s-wrong-with-social-epidemiology-and-how-can-we-make-it-better-J3Rewz24SL

References (111)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
ISSN
0193-936X
eISSN
1478-6729
DOI
10.1093/epirev/mxh010
pmid
15234953
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Epidemiologic Reviews Vol. 26, 2004 Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Printed in U.S.A. All rights reserved DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxh010 1,2 George A. Kaplan Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Received for publication December 11, 2003; accepted for publication February 20, 2004. INTRODUCTION social, and therefore its remedies must also be economic and social” (4, p. 129), there is no question that there has been It is perhaps ironic that an epidemiologist who has been enormous growth in the study of these economic and social working in the field of social epidemiology for over a quarter forces on health and disease. Figure 1, which plots growth of a century, and who directs a center focused on social since 1966 in use of the term “social epidemiology” in article epidemiology, should coin a title suggesting that there is titles, abstracts, and keywords, graphically illustrates this something “wrong” with social epidemiology. Perhaps it is increased interest. Beginning in the early 1980s, growth of even inopportune, as it could provide ammunition to those

Journal

Epidemiologic ReviewsOxford University Press

Published: Jul 1, 2004

There are no references for this article.