Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on October 26, 2005
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(6):1181-1182; doi:10.1093/ije/dyi242
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/6/1181    most recent
dyi242v1
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 (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ben-Shlomo, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ben-Shlomo, Y.
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 2005; all rights reserved.

Editorial

Real epidemiologists don't do ecological studies?

Yoav Ben-Shlomo

Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK

E-mail: y.ben-shlomo@bristol.ac.uk

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

The papers by Tapia Granados1,2 and the accompanying commentaries3–8 provide a most welcome debate for epidemiologists interested in the role of macro-level socioeconomic factors in determining mortality risk. Leaving aside technical arguments around the statistical methods, this work is challenging and should be of interest to many readers. The observation that mortality actually increases during periods of economic expansion, though not new, is counterintuitive and strikes deep at the heart of social epidemiology that believes improving socioeconomic conditions should be associated with better health. It is therefore unsurprising that this observation is strongly challenged. However, as Tapia Granados,1,2 Edwards,4 and Rhum8 discuss, there are reasons (access to health care, health . . . [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
I A Jacobs, M T Podobny, and D Bilusich
One mechanism underlying contrasting health-economy findings
Int. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2007; 36(4): 929 - 931.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
D. March and E. Susser
The eco- in eco-epidemiology
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2006; 35(6): 1379 - 1383.
[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
G. D. Smith
Equal, but different? Ecological, individual and instrumental approaches to understanding determinants of health
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2005; 34(6): 1179 - 1180.
[Full Text] [PDF]