Krieger Nancy
Professor, Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Kresge 717, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Am J Public Health. 2008 Feb;98(2):221-30. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.111278. Epub 2008 Jan 2.
Causal thinking in public health, and especially in the growing literature on social determinants of health, routinely employs the terminology of proximal (or downstream) and distal (or upstream). I argue that the use of these terms is problematic and adversely affects public health research, practice, and causal accountability. At issue are distortions created by conflating measures of space, time, level, and causal strength. To make this case, I draw on an ecosocial perspective to show how public health got caught in the middle of the problematic proximal-distal divide--surprisingly embraced by both biomedical and social determinist frameworks--and propose replacing the terms proximal and distal with explicit language about levels, pathways, and power.
公共卫生领域的因果关系思考,尤其是在日益增多的关于健康的社会决定因素的文献中,经常使用近端(或下游)和远端(或上游)的术语。我认为这些术语的使用存在问题,并对公共卫生研究、实践和因果责任产生了不利影响。问题在于,将空间、时间、层面和因果强度的度量混为一谈会造成扭曲。为了说明这一点,我借鉴生态社会视角来展示公共卫生如何陷入了有问题的近端 - 远端划分之中——令人惊讶的是,生物医学和社会决定论框架都接受了这种划分——并建议用关于层面、途径和权力的明确表述来取代近端和远端这两个术语。