Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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 (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hunt, K.
Right arrow Articles by Emslie, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hunt, K.
Right arrow Articles by Emslie, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:442-446
© International Epidemiological Association 2001

Reiterations

Commentary: The prevention paradox in lay epidemiology—Rose revisited

Kate Hunt and Carol Emslie

‘It has long been a commonplace observation in the discipline of social anthropology that cultural systems of explanation or accountability [for the occurrence of a misfortune] need to address two distinct issues. In the first place the general kind of misfortune: how and why does it happen? In the second place, the site and time of particular misfortune require explanation: how and why did it happen to this person at this time? ... In our own society, where the development of science has shaped so many other cultural institutions, it is sometimes overlooked that this pair of explanations is still required. This is so because it is a central pillar of the Western scientific tradition that the two explanatory systems are unified.’ 1(p.4)

Rose's seminal paper2 contrasting the consequences of a focus on sick individuals with that on sick populations, stresses the importance of distinguishing between two kinds of aetiological . . . [Full Text of this Article]

What is the prevention paradox?

Lay epidemiology, ‘coronary candidacy’ and the prevention paradox

Lay and professional epidemiology; ne'er the twain shall part?

Notes

References


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
 Fam PractHome page
R. Hall, P. M Saukko, P. H Evans, N. Qureshi, and S. E Humphries
Assessing family history of heart disease in primary care consultations: a qualitative study
Fam. Pract., October 1, 2007; 24(5): 435 - 442.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
A. McConnachie, K. Hunt, C. Emslie, C. Hart, and G. Watt
"Unwarranted survivals" and "anomalous deaths" from coronary heart disease: prospective survey of general population
BMJ, December 22, 2001; 323(7327): 1487 - 1491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]