Risk: basic concept of epidemiology

Naomar Almeida-Filho; Luis David Castiel; José Ricardo Ayres

doi:10.18294/sc.2009.238

Risk: basic concept of epidemiology

Naomar Almeida-Filho PhD in Epidemiology. Professor at Instituto de Saúde Coletiva, Universidade Federal da Bahia. Researcher I-A, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq, Brazil. , Luis David Castiel PhD in Public Health. Research Associate of Departamento de Epidemiologia y Métodos Cuantitativos in Saúde, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Researcher I-C, CNPq, Brazil. , José Ricardo Ayres Physician. Associate Professor of Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Universidade de São Paulo. Researcher I-C, CNPq, Brazil.

Published: 4 December 2009

https://doi.org/10.18294/sc.2009.238

Abstract views

8671

Metrics Loading ...

PDF (Español)

PDF

Abstract

This paper suggests a formalization of the "risk" concept as the object of knowledge of epidemiological science, in order to categorize linguistic, epistemological and methodological aspects of this concept, following upon former contributions of the authors. Firstly, the meanings of risk are analyzed from an etymological and semantic viewpoint, evaluating its use for the constitution of common social discourses. Secondly, the epidemiological concept of risk is focused in hermeneutical perspective, making explicit epistemological axes and conceptual elements for the construction of the epidemiological discourse. Thirdly, theoretical, methodological and political correlations among the object risk, concepts of health and critical theories of society are discussed, aiming at an evaluation of perspectives and challenges for future developments of the scientific field of epidemiology.

Keywords: Risk, Epidemiologic Models, Knowledge, Epidemology, Health Policy

Categories: Epistemology

References

1. Innerarity D. La sociedad invisible. Madrid: Espasa Calpe; 2004.

2. Castiel LD. O Buraco e o Avestruz. A singularidade do adoecer humano. Campinas: Papirus; 1994.

3. Ferreira ABH. Novo Aurélio Século XXI: o dicionário da língua portuguesa. 3ra ed. Río de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira; 1999.

4. Rey A. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. Montreal: Dicorobert ; 1993.

5. Douglas M. Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. Londres: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1986.

6. Skolbekken JA. The risk epidemic in medical journals. Social Science and Medicine. 1995;40(3): 291-305.

7. Houaiss A, Vilar M. Dicionário Houaiss da língua portuguesa. Río de Janeiro: Objetiva; 2001.

8. Luhmann N. Observations on modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1998.

9. Sennett R. A corrosão do caráter. Consequências pessoais do trabalho no novo capitalismo. Río de Janeiro: Record; 1999.

10. Førde OH. Is imposing risk awareness cultural imperialism? Social Science and Medicine. 1998;47(9):1155-1159.

11. Robertson A. Biotechnology, political rationality and discourses on health. Health. 2001;5(3)293-309.

12. Vaz P, Pombo M, Fantinato M, Pecly G. O fator de risco na mídia. Interface: Comunicação, Saúde, Educação. 2007;11(21):145-163.

13. Atlan H, Bousquet C. Questions de vie. Entre le savoir et l’opinion. París: Seuil; 1994.

14. Ayres JRCM. Sobre o risco: para compreender a epidemiologia. 3ra ed. San Pablo: Hucitec; 2008.

15. Hamer WH. The relation of bacillus typhosus to typhoid fever. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1908;1(6):204-228.

16. Topley WWC. The spread of bacterial infections. The Lancet. 1919;I:1-5, 45-49, 91-96.

17. Howard Jr. WT. The real risk-rate of death of mothers from causes connected with childbirth. American Journal of Hygiene. 1921;1(2):197-233.

18. Doull JA, Lara H. The epidemiological importance of diphtheria carriers. American Journal of Hygiene. 1925;5(4):508-529.

19. Fales WT. The distribution of whooping cough, measles, chicken pox, scarlet fever, and diphtheria in various areas in the United States. American Journal of Hygiene. 1928;8(5):759-799.

20. Frost WH. Risk of persons in familial contact with pulmonary tuberculosis. American Journal of Public Health. 1933;(23):426-32.

21. Miettinen O. Theoretical Epidemiology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1985.

22. Last JM, editor. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.

23. Gifford SM. The meaning of lumps: a case study of the ambiguities of risk. En: Craig RJ, Stall R, Gifford SM. Anthropology and Epidemiology: interdisciplinary approaches to the study of health and disease. Boston: Reidel; 1986. p. 213-246.

24. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research: principles and quantitative methods. Belmont: Lifetime Learning Publ.; 1982.

25. Czeresnia D, Albuquerque MFM. Modelos de inferência causal: análise crítica da utilização da estatística na epidemiologia. Revista de Saúde Pública. 1995;29(5): 415-423.

26. Susser M. Causal thinking in the health sciences. New York; Oxford University Press; 1973.

27. Vineis P. Modelli di rischio. Epidemiologia e Causalitá. Turín: Einaudi; 1990.

28. Macmahon B, Pugh T, Ipsen J. Epidemiologic methods. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.; 1960.

29. Lilienfeld A. Foundations of epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1976.

30. Almeida Filho N. A ciência da saúde. San Pablo: Hucitec; 2000.

31. Buck C. Popper’s philosophy for epidemiologists. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1975;(4):159-168.

32. Weed D. On the logic of causal inference. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1986;6(123):965-979.

33. Hayes M. On the epistemology of risk: language, logic and social science. Social Science and Medicine. 1992;4(35):401-407.

34. Jenicek M, Cléroux R. Épidémiologie clinique. Quebec: Edisen Inc.; 1985.

35. Skrabanek P, Mccormick J. Follies and fallacies in medicine. New York: Prometheus Books; 1990.

36. Hayes MV. The risk approach: unassailable logic? Social Science and Medicine. 1991;33(1): 55-70.

37. Susser M, Susser E. Choosing a future for epidemiology: II. From black box to Chinese boxes and eco-epidemiology. American Journal of Public Health. 1996;86(5):674-677.

38. Labonté R. Health systems governance for health equity: critical reflections. Revista de Salud Pública. 2010;12(1):62-76.

39. Careri F. Walkscapes ten years after. Revista de Estudios Urbanos y Ciencias Sociales. 2014;4(1):207-213.

40. Armstrong D. The rise of surveillance medicine. Sociology of Health and Illness. 1995;17(3):393-404.

41. Kenen RH. The at-risk health status and technology: a diagnostic invitation and the “gift” of knowing. Social Science and Medicine. 1996;42(11):1545-1553.

42. Cohen AM, Stavri PZ, Hersh WR. A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of evidencebased medicine. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004;73(1):35-43.

43. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1965;58(5):295-300.

44. Habermas J. Teoría de la acción comunicativa I: racionalidad de la acción y racionalizaciónsocial. Madrid: Taurus; 1987.

45. Castiel LD. Debate sobre o artigo de Almeida-Filho “Transdisciplinaridade e Saúde Coletiva”. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 1997;2(1-2):27-30.

46. Almeida Filho N, Coutinho, D. Causalidade, contingência, complexidade: O futuro do conceito de risco. Physis-Revista de Saúde Coletiva. 2007;17(7):95-138.

47. Organización Panamericana de la Salud.Riesgos del ambiente humano para la salud. Washington: Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana; 1976. (Publicación Científica Nº 329).

48. Aristóteles. Organon. Lisboa: Guimarães Editores; 1985.

49. Grandjean P. Implications of the precautionary principle for public health practice and research. Annual Review of Public Health.2004;25:199-223.

50. Levy B. Toward a holistic approach to public health surveillance. [Editorial] American Journal of Public Health. 1996;5(86):624-625.

51. Ayres JRCM, Calazans GJ, Saletti Filho HC, França Júnior I. Risco, vulnerabilidade e práticas de prevenção e promoção da saúde. En: Campos GWS, Minayo MCS, Akerman M, Drumond Júnior M, Carvalho YM, organizadores. Tratado de Saúde Coletiva. San Pablo, Rio de Janeiro: Hucitec, FIOCRUZ; 2006. p. 375-418.

52. Castiel LD, Alvarez-Dardet C. La salud persecutoria. Revista de Saúde Pública. 2007;41(3):461-466.

53. Mathiesen T. The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s ‘Panopticon’ revisited. Theoretical Criminology. 1997;1(2):215-234.

54. Lemke T. Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking Marxism. 2002;14(3):S49-S64.

55. Gadamer HG. Verdade e método I: traços fundamentais de uma hermenêutica filosófica. 6ta ed. Petrópolis, Bragança Paulista: Vozes, Editora Universitária São Francisco; 2004.

56. Canguilhem G. O normal e o patológico. 2da ed. Río de Janeiro: Forense-Universitária; 1982. 20. Frost WH. Risk of persons in familial contact with pulmonary tuberculosis. American Journal of Public Health. 1933;(23):426-32.

57. Almeida Filho N. Transdisciplinaridade e saúde coletiva. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 1997;2(1-2):5-20.

58. Ayres JRCM. Deve-se definir transdisciplinaridade? Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 1997;2(1-2):36-38.