Krieger Nancy
Nancy Krieger is with the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Am J Public Health. 2017 Apr;107(4):541-549. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303655.
Numerous examples exist in population health of work that erroneously forces the causes of health to sum to 100%. This is surprising. Clear refutations of this error extend back 80 years. Because public health analysis, action, and allocation of resources are ill served by faulty methods, I consider why this error persists. I first review several high-profile examples, including Doll and Peto's 1981 opus on the causes of cancer and its current interpretations; a 2015 high-publicity article in Science claiming that two thirds of cancer is attributable to chance; and the influential Web site "County Health Rankings & Roadmaps: Building a Culture of Health, County by County," whose model sums causes of health to equal 100%: physical environment (10%), social and economic factors (40%), clinical care (20%), and health behaviors (30%). Critical analysis of these works and earlier historical debates reveals that underlying the error of forcing causes of health to sum to 100% is the still dominant but deeply flawed view that causation can be parsed as nature versus nurture. Better approaches exist for tallying risk and monitoring efforts to reach health equity.
在人群健康领域,有许多实例表明,某些研究错误地将健康原因的总和设定为100%。这令人惊讶。对这一错误的明确驳斥可以追溯到80年前。由于错误的方法不利于公共卫生分析、行动和资源分配,我思考了为什么这个错误仍然存在。我首先回顾几个备受瞩目的例子,包括多尔和皮托1981年关于癌症病因的著作及其当前的解读;2015年发表在《科学》杂志上的一篇备受关注的文章,声称三分之二的癌症归因于偶然性;以及有影响力的网站“县健康排名与路线图:逐县构建健康文化”,其模型将健康原因的总和设定为100%:物理环境(10%)、社会和经济因素(40%)、临床护理(20%)和健康行为(30%)。对这些研究以及早期历史辩论的批判性分析表明,将健康原因总和设定为100%这一错误的背后,是仍然占主导地位但存在严重缺陷的观点,即因果关系可以被解析为先天与后天。在计算风险和监测实现健康公平的努力方面,存在更好的方法。