Wensing Michel
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Centre for Quality of Care Research, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jun;61(6):519-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.12.014.
Research methods from social science, such as social network analysis, random coefficient modeling, and advanced measurement techniques, can contribute much to the health sciences. There is, however, a slow rate of transmission of social science methodology into the health sciences. This paper identifies some of the barriers for adoption and proposes ideas for the future.
Commentary.
Contributions of social science to the health sciences are not always recognized as such. It may help if the professional profile of social science in the health sciences would be higher and if its focus would be more on making useful predictions. Clinical epidemiologists may assume that their discipline includes all relevant methods and that social science is largely based on qualitative research. These perceptions need to be challenged in order to widen the scope of clinical epidemiology and include relevant methods from other sciences.
New methods help to ask new research questions and to provide better to old questions. This paper has sketched challenges for both social science researchers and clinical epidemiologists.
社会科学的研究方法，如社会网络分析、随机系数建模和先进的测量技术，能对健康科学做出很大贡献。然而，社会科学方法论向健康科学的传播速度较慢。本文指出了一些采用过程中的障碍，并提出了对未来的设想。
评论。
社会科学对健康科学的贡献并非总能得到认可。如果社会科学在健康科学中的专业形象能更高，且其重点更多地放在做出有用预测上，可能会有所帮助。临床流行病学家可能认为他们的学科包含了所有相关方法，且社会科学很大程度上基于定性研究。为了拓宽临床流行病学的范围并纳入其他学科的相关方法，这些观念需要受到挑战。
新方法有助于提出新的研究问题，并更好地回答旧问题。本文为社会科学研究者和临床流行病学家勾勒出了挑战。
