Gori G B
The Health Policy Center, Bethesda, Maryland 20816-1016, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Aug;51(8):637-41. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00021-3.
Public health militancy has been increasingly frustrated by what many perceive as the marginally fertile studies of risk factors operating at the individual level, whose causal underpinnings are often and inevitably weakened in multifactorial situations. As a remedy, leading advocates propose a refocusing of epidemiology and public health on socioeconomic, cultural, and political studies, and on broad interventions at population level. This new "paradigm" would be aided by a relaxation of evidentiary standards of causality, away from scientific criteria and more toward dialectic (rhetorical) precepts derived in a humanistic and sociologic tradition. It is countered here that such proposals would further reduce the objectivity and thus likely weaken rather than strengthen epidemiology and the justification of public health action. Instead, a realistic appraisal finds that multifactorial epidemiology raises warning signals of varying influence, and that the usefulness of epidemiology and public health could be enhanced by conceiving of methods to score the relative strength and priority of such warnings.
许多人认为,针对个体层面危险因素的研究成效甚微,其因果基础在多因素情况下常常不可避免地被削弱,这使得公共卫生激进主义越来越受挫。作为一种补救措施,主要倡导者提议将流行病学和公共卫生的重点重新放在社会经济、文化和政治研究以及人口层面的广泛干预上。这种新的“范式”将得益于因果关系证据标准的放宽,从科学标准转向更多源自人文和社会学传统的辩证(修辞)准则。本文反驳称,此类提议将进一步降低客观性,从而可能削弱而非加强流行病学以及公共卫生行动的正当性。相反,一项现实评估发现,多因素流行病学发出了影响各异的警示信号,并且通过构思对这些警示的相对强度和优先级进行评分的方法,可以提高流行病学和公共卫生的效用。