Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on March 4, 2009
International Journal of Epidemiology 2009 38(3):838-845; doi:10.1093/ije/dyn372
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
38/3/838    most recent
dyn372v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hafeman, D. M
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hafeman, D. M
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2009; all rights reserved.

Opening the Black Box: a motivation for the assessment of mediation

Danella M Hafeman and Sharon Schwartz*

Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, USA.

*Corresponding author. E-mail: sbs5{at}columbia.edu


  Abstract

Recent criticism of epidemiologic methods has focused on the limitations of ‘black box’ epidemiology, a pejorative label given to the simple identification of exposure–disease relationships. The assessment of mediation is an important tool for addressing this criticism. By using mediation analysis to open the black box, underlying mechanisms of the observed associations can be described and causal inference improved. An explicit theoretical motivation for such an analysis has been missing from the epidemiological literature. To provide this motivation, we integrate literature from epidemiology and other social sciences to describe the reasons that an investigator might want to assess mediation. We then describe the connections between these reasons and specific measures of indirect and direct effects that have been previously described.

Keywords Mediation, direct and indirect effects, counterfactual, causal inference, epidemiologic methods

Accepted 18 December 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
D. M. Hafeman
"Proportion Explained": A Causal Interpretation for Standard Measures of Indirect Effect?
Am. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2009; 170(11): 1443 - 1448.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
S. Schwartz, D. Hafeman, U. Campbell, and N. Gatto
Author's Response
Int. J. Epidemiol., November 3, 2009; (2009) dyp323v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
J. S Kaufman
Commentary: Gilding the black box
Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2009; 38(3): 845 - 847.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.