Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on October 1, 2004
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(3):529-533; doi:10.1093/ije/dyh272
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/3/529    most recent
dyh272v1
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 (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grundy, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grundy, E.
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 2004; all rights reserved.

Commentary

Commentary: The McKeown debate: time for burial

Emily Grundy

Correspondence: Centre for Population Studies, Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 49–51 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3DP, UK. E-mail: emily.grundy@lshtm.ac.uk

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

The work of Thomas McKeown, in one form or another, has for several decades featured on countless student reading lists and in virtually all Anglophone accounts of population change and the epidemiological transition. It has additionally provoked or exacerbated a range of fierce debates on the role of medicine, links between nutrition and health, the costs and benefits of industrial capitalism, associations between economic development and population growth, and the influence of bias on research and interpretation of research findings.1,2

All this started with an article published in Population Studies in 1955 (with RG Brown) in which McKeown entered a debate on the causes of population growth during the 18th century.3 In the chapter considered here—‘Medical issues in historical demography’—McKeown4 rehearsed and elaborated the arguments developed in this initial paper and a series of subsequent ones; arguments subsequently dubbed ‘the McKeown thesis’. So what in this work has provoked such . . . [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
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
J. P Mackenbach
Commentary: Did Preston underestimate the effect of economic development on mortality?
Int. J. Epidemiol., June 5, 2007; (2007) dym080v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
N. Pearce and F. Merletti
Complexity, simplicity, and epidemiology
Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2006; 35(3): 515 - 519.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
G. D. Smith
Infection, medical care and inequalities
Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2005; 34(3): 507 - 508.
[Full Text] [PDF]