您的账号已在其他设备登录,您当前账号已强迫下线,
如非您本人操作,建议您在会员中心进行密码修改

确定
收藏 | 浏览25

This article examines how epidemiological evidence is and should be used in the context of increasing concern for health equity and for social determinants of health.A research literature on use of scientific evidence of "environmental risks" is outlined, and key issues compared with those that arise with respect to social determinants of health.The issue sets are very similar. Both involve the choice of a standard of proof, and the corollary need to make value judgments about how to address uncertainty in the context of "the inevitability of being wrong," at least some of the time, and to consider evidence from multiple kinds of research design. The nature of such value judgments and the need for methodological pluralism are incompletely understood.Responsible policy analysis and interpretation of scientific evidence require explicit consideration of the ethical issues involved in choosing a standard of proof. Because of the stakes involved, such choices often become contested political terrain. Comparative research on how those choices are made will be valuable.

作者:Ted, Schrecker

来源:Preventive medicine 2013 年 57卷 6期

相似文献
知识库介绍

临床诊疗知识库该平台旨在解决临床医护人员在学习、工作中对医学信息的需求,方便快速、便捷的获取实用的医学信息,辅助临床决策参考。该库包含疾病、药品、检查、指南规范、病例文献及循证文献等多种丰富权威的临床资源。

详细介绍
热门关注
免责声明:本知识库提供的有关内容等信息仅供学习参考,不代替医生的诊断和医嘱。

收藏
| 浏览:25
作者:
Ted, Schrecker
来源:
Preventive medicine 2013 年 57卷 6期
标签:
Anthropology Environmental health Epidemiology Ethical analysis Policy Politics Social conditions Social justice Social policy
This article examines how epidemiological evidence is and should be used in the context of increasing concern for health equity and for social determinants of health.A research literature on use of scientific evidence of "environmental risks" is outlined, and key issues compared with those that arise with respect to social determinants of health.The issue sets are very similar. Both involve the choice of a standard of proof, and the corollary need to make value judgments about how to address uncertainty in the context of "the inevitability of being wrong," at least some of the time, and to consider evidence from multiple kinds of research design. The nature of such value judgments and the need for methodological pluralism are incompletely understood.Responsible policy analysis and interpretation of scientific evidence require explicit consideration of the ethical issues involved in choosing a standard of proof. Because of the stakes involved, such choices often become contested political terrain. Comparative research on how those choices are made will be valuable.