Follow-up

Webmaster: TJHombre
[ New Account ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Threaded Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by TJResearcher on April 27, 2001 at 21:28:47:

I'm going to respond to a few posts up using a new thread because I think they were important and deserve attention.

Recently, ShyGuy posted some information about herpes. I'd love to see that added to your Men's Health section. I wasn't aware of the info he provided concerning test/diagnostics. I remember last year totally freaking out because I thought I might have it, and was told it was just a simple bacterial infection. I was pretty pissed when I was told there wasn't a test for it, and didn't think them just looking at it was sufficient. It went away and never came back but I would have felt a lot better if I had known there was a test and had the name of it so I could demand it.

Next: HornyMike responded to a statement I made about migration as a risk factor for HIV. In his response, he discussed the epidemiological/statistical definition of risk, which as an medical anthropologist, I see as both a culturally constructed definition (that is there is a culture created and maintained by medical professionals) and only one definition thats out there. My response:
It is absolutely the truth that epidemiologists discuss statistical risk in terms of correlations, and only "significant" ones at that. However, as an advocate, I (and many others) use the term more loosely to refer to what I see as causal factors for a variety of health issues. My theoretical framework is informed by what is called "the political economy of health", and more recently, the political economy of risk. Using this approach, a social scientist can identify connections between social, political, and ecnomic conditions and experiences, and the impact that these have on health. So when I say migration is a risk factor, I am arguing that the migration (and all of the policies which facilitate, constrain, increase/decrease migratory movement) is clearly connected to things which affect both the transmission of, and treatment for, health issues. Migration, because it effects access to resources, nutrition, stress level, social and sexual networks, etc. can be used as a lense to discuss risk beyond the individual level. Social theorists often use a "qualitative" approach to research such topics.

Thanks for bringing tis topic out because the distinction is really pretty important in terms of where funding priorities are and the differences in methods between epidemiologists and social scientists.

Now maybe you think a social science approach is "fuzzy" science, but I think its important for me to suggest that an ideal approach integrates both syles of research (say in a team or collaboration). Social science lets us see the connections between things in the way that reflects human experience, whereas epidemiology can then identify different aspects of those experience, quantify them, and test theories about how connected things might be (quantiative approach). There are pro's and con's to both approaches, which is why they work best when done in conjunction with one another. Unfortunately, as students, we aren't taught integrated methods (formally), and end up having to teach ourselves how to do things (sometimes poorly) outside of our discipline. Alternately, we can ask for help from others, which is why I've spent so much time talking to health workers and looking at how the Mexican health system works rather than just collecting stories (which is what IM really interested in).

Its late, and I've had a hard week. But look for my post this weekend on what I did this week. The stuff I found out completely blew me away, and I'm too exhausted and raw to even write about it at this point. (Plus I'm tired enough to ramble - )
So good night, and I hope this was interesting to someone out there.
:)

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
Password:
E-Mail:
Subject:

Comments:

E-mail me when this message is replied to

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Threaded Board ] [ FAQ ]