4.6 Article

Social justice, epidemiology and health inequalities

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 537-546

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-017-0286-3

关键词

Equity; Health inequalities; Social determinants of health; Social gradient; Reverse causation

资金

  1. ESRC [ES/F02679X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. MRC [G0902037, G1000616] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. British Heart Foundation [RG/07/008/23674] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/F02679X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G0100222, G1000616, G8802774, G0902037, G19/35] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A lifetime spent studying how social determinants of health lead to health inequalities has clarified many issues. First is that social stratification is an appropriate topic of study for epidemiologists. To ignore it would be to ignore a major source of variation in health in society. Not only is the social gradient in health appropriate to study but we have made progress both in understanding its causes and what can be done to address them. Post-modern 'critical theory' raises questions about the social construction of science. Given the attack on science by politicians of bad faith, it is important to recognise that epidemiology and public health have a crucial role to play in providing evidence to improve health of society and reduce inequalities. Evidence gives grounds for optimism that progress can be made both in improving the health of the worst- off in society and narrowing health inequalities. Theoretical debates about 'inequality of what' have been helpful in clarifying theories that drive further gathering of evidence. While it is important to consider alternative explanations of the social gradient in health-principal among them reverse causation-evidence strongly supports social causation. Social action is by its nature political. It is, though, a vital function to provide the evidence that underpins action.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据