Clarifying how social epidemiological research constructs the category of low socioeconomic status: A response to Kamphuis et al.

In our previous article, published in this journal, we argued that epidemiology has a constructive role with regard to socioeconomic health inequalities. We concluded that, as long as the construction of LSES remains unquestioned, social epidemiology might continue to (re)produce what it examines: LSES populations 'known to be unhealthy'. Recently, in this journal, Kamphuis et al. responded to our article. While they welcomed our reflections, the authors also posed critique to our arguments. In this paper, we respond to that critique and deepen the discussion on the use of (L)SES categories in social epidemiology. For this purpose, we further clarify our arguments and state that in health inequality research it is important to: 1) Pay attention to the unintended effects of research; 2) Consider the origin and effects of explanatory concepts; and 3) reflect on the norms of cultural capital.

Automated summary

In our previous article, we highlighted the constructive role of epidemiology in addressing socioeconomic health inequalities, but also acknowledged the potential harm caused by unquestioned social constructions. In response, Kamphuis et al. welcomed our reflections but posed criticism, prompting us to further clarify our arguments and emphasize the importance of unintended effects, origins and impacts of explanatory concepts, and cultural capital norms in health inequality research.