Resumen de Introduction: Seeing the Forest and the Trees—From Observation to Experiments in Social Epidemiology
Social epidemiology, disguised in other forms and known by other names, has been with us for decades, if not centuries. During periods of rapid urbanization and industrialization in the 19th century, work by Villerme (1), Virchow (2), and Engels (3) identified the health consequences of the political economy. Durkheim (4) revealed the social patterning of suicide. For years, demographers described the social forces that shaped mortality, fertility, and population profiles. As we moved through the early and mid-20th century, a host of classically trained epidemiologists such as Frost (5), Goldberger et al. (6), and Winslow (7) and social scientists such as Sydenstricker (8), Faris and Dunham (9), and Parks (10) produced complex, nuanced understandings of how social and economic forces shape patterns of health and disease. Beginning in the 1930s, studies of mental health focused on the impact of social disorganization and social deprivation at the neighborhood level (9). In fact, the “Chicago School” of sociologists emphasized the role of neighborhoods as central to well-being. If we think of social epidemiology as focused on the central question of how social conditions give rise to patterns of health and disease in populations, we may well wonder what brings us to celebrate this collection of work at this particular moment. In the broadest sense, the field is not a new one, nor are epidemiologists the only scientists contributing to a deepening understanding of the social determinants of health.
So what is new? What do epidemiologists contribute to our understanding of the ways in which society influences population health? In this issue of Epidemiologic Reviews, a group of distinguished epidemiologists shape a mission for social epidemiology for the next several decades. In fact, they help to shape a future mission for the entire field of epidemiology. They identify what is new about …
