Effect Of Social Interaction on Health - Essay Example

Social Epidemiology Social Epidemiology: The Study of the Effect that Social Interaction has on Health s Social Epidemiology 2 Social Epidemiology: The Study of the Effect that Social Interaction has on Health The study of social epidemiology is concerned with the way in which societal interaction and development influences the health of the members of those societies. By combining disciplines such as sociology, economics, biology, anthropology, and demography, cultural risk factors can be assessed for medical challenges within those communities (WHO, 2002). In the study of social epidemiology and its related disciplines it is significant to look at the way in which researchers are approaching the work. By looking at the work of Raphael, DiGiacomo, and Abramson, a review of the collaborative efforts and the approach can be examines for strengths and weaknesses. In looking at Beaglehole’s work on Basic Epidemiology a general understanding of the discipline can be comprehended. The World Health Organization (2002) defines social epidemiology as “the study of how society and different forms of social organization influence the health and well-being of individuals and populations”. The appearance of social inequalities in the way that economic related issues are concerned are ways in which the study of a society can reveal needs that must be addressed to thwart the way in which disease affects the lives of members of a social group in comparison to the way it affects those of another group. It has been shown through the work of social epidemiologists that inequities within the economic social structure of a nation can lead to inequities within the medical care that is available and provided. By looking at the ways in which this research is approached, an understanding of the impact of these kinds of studies can be assessed for merit and for future responsibility toward social change. Social Epidemiology 3 Dennis Raphael (2000) has created a study of the inequities that exist in the health care within the United States. His research is based on U.S. statistical information on economics and health, correlating the two to create conclusions about the way in which economic inequalities create diverse general health implications. With the use of secondary research to prove his hypothesis, he is able to create support for his points of interest and create strong connective dialogue for his theories. However, one of the weaknesses of this use of secondary research is that much of the information is not recent to his publication date of 2000. As an example, in the section that makes a connection between health differences in relation to race, the statistics that are being used are from 1985 and 1987. With this topic, the way in which race is relevant changes rapidly, creating a diverse statistical variance, the use of data that is not recent does not successfully support the hypothesis. According to Siegel, Swanson, and Shryock, (2004, p. 181), over the course of 20 years, race relations have changed as have economic and cultural organization, creating noticeable differences in statistical result. According to Raphael (2000, p. 414), there are five factors that create a gap between the rich and the poor that have an effect on the health of a society. These gaps are: employment gap, value gap, income gap, common goods gap, and wealth gap. In studying the effect of poverty on heart disease, a correlation was revealed between lower incomes and higher risk factors. The results of the report quoted by Raphael (2000, p. 398) from the US Department of Health and Human Services revealed that Americans in an income bracket of $25,000 had rates of 126 per 100,000. This means that less than half the number of those earning more than $25,000 suffer from heart disease compared to more than twice that figure for those under $10,000. This relatively short (short when the possibility of a much higher income is possible) gap creates a great difference in heart disease incidents. Using this type of support, creates a credible statistical picture to prove the hypothesis. By using current data, the statistical relevance of economic earnings to the occurrence of heart disease can be easily assessed through the clarity of this data. The overall point of view that Raphael is attempting to promote is supported through the collected data and by organizing it in such a way as to build a case for the eventual conclusions that the research supports. However, the work veers off topic when Canadian concerns over inequities are brought into the discourse. If the Canadian examples was used to show a contrasting experience, the use of the section may seem more relevant. However, in this case, the section muddies the country specific topic. Susan DiGiacomo’s (1999) discusses the natural association between anthropological and epidemiological studies of health which results in cultural epidemiology, which is very similar to social epidemiological studies. The argument that she makes is in how the interdisciplinary collaboration of these types of studies create a wider vision on making determinations concerning the ways in which health related issues are affected by culture. DiGiacomo (1999, p.436) begins her paper getting straight to the point of her premise: “1) that biological and anthropological paradigms are not inherently incompatible: and 2) that epidemiology and anthropology are natural allies in the study of disease in human populations”. She goes on to say that the concept has only Social Epidemiology 5 been more widely used within the last ten years (20 years from the current date) to the advantage of the disciplines. In establishing a connection between the disciplines, DiGiacomo has spent two years as the only anthropologist in a department of epidemiologists in Barcelona and utilized this real life experience to study the fusion of the disciplines. She was able to focus on cancer as a topic focus to see if the disciplines could join to have an effect on the course of health within this category of a medical condition. However, what she proposed to her colleagues was met with resistance as it was believed that the combination of disciplines created an over abundance of information. She had to contend with a reception that believed that the preponderance of data bogged down the issues that the epidemiologists were trying to address. However, her aim has merit, although it has a sense of being over ambitious. The way in which she addresses the topics has validity and should be considered by her colleagues in order to refine the theory. In her conclusions she mentions that the pressure on the members of her department to publish created a portion of the resistance as her proposal would be time-consuming in the efforts of collaboration. While the concept that her theory proposes too much information gathered to be successfully combined through the collaboration of interdisciplinary work, the concept that this collaboration will have merit supersedes the individual fears of the disciplines to be involved. Paul R. Abramson has created a study that looks at the way in which HIV is spread, which is a definitive example of how the social aspect of health is relevant to the how a disease is spread. While HIV is specifically a social disease, that factor provides Social Epidemiology 6 for a basis of examination in the methods that are used to study its progression. Abramson (1988, p. 324) admits that because of the nature of sexual contact between human beings, it is difficult to fully quantify the experience in statistical models. The work needed more development than the tools he used to create his statistical models could provide. As a recourse, Abramson suggests that long-term studies by used to create a better representation of the needs for the research. Abramson (1988, p. 340) states that “it becomes critical to articulate how and when mathematics may be employed to measure the relation of probability”. He admits that there is a gap in the way that a statistical measure alone can represent social interactions as they affect relativity in disease, and in this case, the spread of the disease through social contact. The way in which choice is relevant and cannot fully be measured brings about the gap that must be filled through the use of sociology. As this study was done during the late 1980’s, the concept of social epidemiology had yet to truly develop, according to DiGiacomo. The presentation of this study and the conclusions it reaches concerning gaps in the way that the spread of HIV cannot be quantified shows the need for the collaboration of disciplines to understand the cultural experiences in relationship to health issues. In an understanding of the basic concepts within the discipline of epidemiology, a look at the work of Bonita, Beaglehole and Kjellstrom can help in defining the area of study. In creating a definition for epidemiology they quote Last as saying that it is “the study of the distribution and determinants of health related states or events in specified populations and the application of this study to the prevention and control of health Social Epidemiology 7 problems” (Bonita, Beaglehole and Kjellstrom, 2006, p. 2). The way in which the study of epidemiology is approached is most often from a geographic definition of cultural boundary. From this, statistical information is created in regard to the health of that location and quantified into mathematical representations of the way in which the health of an area can be assessed. Successful contributions to the control of several diseases can be attributed to the studies done in epidemiology. Among them, small pox, methyl mercury poisoning, rheumatic fever and heart disease, and tobacco use and asbestos as they relate to lung disease have all benefited through the studies of epidemiologists (Bonita, Beaglehole and Kjellstrom, 2006, p. 9). An example of a statistical measurement that might be useful is in the frequency of occurrence of a disease which can then be related to any number of factors to determine what element is most often creating a causality. In this way, the epidemiologist can help to create models of study that can contribute to diminishing the spread of a particular disease. However, as demonstrated through the work of Abramson, statistical models do not always contribute enough information to instigate effective change. Qualitative information is very useful in helping to create a more well-rounded study of the issues. Despite the resistance that was met by DiGiacomo, the pursuit of this form of collaborative study in creating models of social epidemiology can further contribute to the overall view of the health of a society. The way in which the collaborative effort is utilized and how the variables are defined for study will sufficiently narrow the topics to manageable levels of study. The contributions of social epidemiology will give a more Social Epidemiology 8 complete representation of social effects on health related issues. In examining the inequalities of economics and the associations of groups, the way in which these issues are addressed can be modified leading to effective social change and the betterment of society. Social Epidemiology 9 List of References ABRAMSON, P. R. (Aug., 1988), “Sexual Assessment and the Epidemiology of AIDS”, The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 323-346. BONITA, R., BEAGLEHOLE, R., AND KJELLSTROM, T. (2006). Basic Epidemiology, Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization Press. DIGIACOMO, S. M. Dec. 1999, “Can there be “Cultural Epidemiology”, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 436-457. RAPHAEL, D. 2000, “Health Inequaties in the United States: Prospects and Solutions”, Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 394-427. SWANSON, D., SIEGEL, J. S., & SHRYOCK, H. S. (2004). The Methods and materials of demography. San Diego, CA, Elsevier Academic Press. World Health Organization 2002, Introduction to Social Epidemiology, Pan American Health Organization, viewed 6 April 2009, Read More