Health Equity and the Fallacy of Treating Causes of Population Health as if They Sum to 100.
review · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 28272952.
- Also identified by DOI 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303655 and PMC identifier 5343713.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Numerous examples exist in population health of work that erroneously forces the causes of health to sum to 100%. This is surprising. Clear refutations of this error extend back 80 years. Because public health analysis, action, and allocation of resources are ill served by faulty methods, I consider why this error persists. I first review several high-profile examples, including Doll and Peto's 1981 opus on the causes of cancer and its current interpretations; a 2015 high-publicity article in Science claiming that two thirds of cancer is attributable to chance; and the influential Web site "County Health Rankings & Roadmaps: Building a Culture of Health, County by County," whose model sums causes of health to equal 100%: physical environment (10%), social and economic factors (40%), clinical care (20%), and health behaviors (30%). Critical analysis of these works and earlier historical debates reveals that underlying the error of forcing causes of health to sum to 100% is the still dominant but deeply flawed view that causation can be parsed as nature versus nurture. Better approaches exist for tallying risk and monitoring efforts to reach health equity.
Medical subject headings
- Health Equity
- Models, Statistical
- Neoplasms
- Public Health
- Social Determinants of Health