Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on July 28, 2004
International Journal of Epidemiology 2004 33(4):705-709; doi:10.1093/ije/dyh143
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
33/4/705    most recent
dyh143v1
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 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 (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Szreter, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Szreter, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

IJE vol.33 no.4 © International Epidemiological Association 2004; all rights reserved.

Article

Author response: Debating mortality trends in 19th century Britain

Simon Szreter

University of Cambridge, St John's College, Cambridge, CB2 1TP, UK. E-mail: srss@cam.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The commentary by Davey Smith and Lynch is of a different kind from the others and requires a separate response, from Simon Szreter alone, since it is almost entirely devoted to a critique of Szreter's historical work on the chronology of mortality and health change in 19th century Britain. The key claim, which Davey Smith and Lynch wish to advance, is that it is wrong to place the primary emphasis on the 1870s and on the political and social events associated with that decade as comprising the most important causes of the modern mortality decline in Britain. They assert that it is the decade of the 1850s, instead, which saw the true origins of a continuous secular fall in the nation's mortality and that we should therefore examine the political and social events associated with that decade as being of primary significance in causing the modern mortality decline. Closely associated . . . [Full Text of this Article]


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
 Soc Hist MedHome page
G. Mooney
Infectious Diseases and Epidemiologic Transition in Victorian Britain? Definitely
Soc Hist Med, December 1, 2007; 20(3): 595 - 606.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
G. DAVEY SMITH
Cultural climate, physical climate, life, and death
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2006; 35(2): 211 - 212.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
B. Harris
Health by association
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2005; 34(2): 488 - 490.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
S. Szreter
Reply to Bernard Harris
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2005; 34(2): 490 - 492.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
P. Razzell and C. Spence
Social capital and the history of mortality in Britain
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2005; 34(2): 477 - 478.
[Full Text] [PDF]