Who and What Is a 'Population'? Historical Debates, Current Controversies, and Implications for Understanding 'Population Health' and Rectifying Health Inequities.
Saved in:
| Title: | Who and What Is a 'Population'? Historical Debates, Current Controversies, and Implications for Understanding 'Population Health' and Rectifying Health Inequities. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | KRIEGER, NANCY (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Milbank Quarterly. Dec2012, Vol. 90 Issue 4, p634-681. 48p. 1 Black and White Photograph, 1 Diagram, 3 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Population history, Conceptual structures, Health services accessibility, Mathematical models, Population, Public health, Theory |
| Abstract: | Context: The idea of 'population' is core to the population sciences but is rarely defined except in statistical terms. Yet who and what defines and makes a population has everything to do with whether population means are meaningful or meaningless, with profound implications for work on population health and health inequities. Methods: In this article, I review the current conventional definitions of, and historical debates over, the meaning(s) of 'population,' trace back the contemporary emphasis on populations as statistical rather than substantive entities to Adolphe Quetelet's powerful astronomical metaphor, conceived in the 1830s, of l'homme moyen (the average man), and argue for an alternative definition of populations as relational beings. As informed by the ecosocial theory of disease distribution, I then analyze several case examples to explore the utility of critical population-informed thinking for research, knowledge, and policy involving population health and health inequities. Findings: Four propositions emerge: (1) the meaningfulness of means depends on how meaningfully the populations are defined in relation to the inherent intrinsic and extrinsic dynamic generative relationships by which they are constituted; (2) structured chance drives population distributions of health and entails conceptualizing health and disease, including biomarkers, as embodied phenotype and health inequities as historically contingent; (3) persons included in population health research are study participants, and the casual equation of this term with 'study population' should be avoided; and (4) the conventional cleavage of 'internal validity' and 'generalizability' is misleading, since a meaningful choice of study participants must be in relation to the range of exposures experienced (or not) in the real-world societies, that is, meaningful populations, of which they are a part. Conclusions: To improve conceptual clarity, causal inference, and action to promote health equity, population sciences need to expand and deepen their theorizing about who and what makes populations and their means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Milbank Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: pbh DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection An: 83878118 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Who and What Is a 'Population'? Historical Debates, Current Controversies, and Implications for Understanding 'Population Health' and Rectifying Health Inequities. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22KRIEGER%2C+NANCY%22">KRIEGER, NANCY</searchLink> (AUTHOR) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Milbank+Quarterly%22">Milbank Quarterly</searchLink>. Dec2012, Vol. 90 Issue 4, p634-681. 48p. 1 Black and White Photograph, 1 Diagram, 3 Charts. – Name: Subject Label: Subjects Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Population+history%22">Population history</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conceptual+structures%22">Conceptual structures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+services+accessibility%22">Health services accessibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematical+models%22">Mathematical models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Population%22">Population</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+health%22">Public health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theory%22">Theory</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Context: The idea of 'population' is core to the population sciences but is rarely defined except in statistical terms. Yet who and what defines and makes a population has everything to do with whether population means are meaningful or meaningless, with profound implications for work on population health and health inequities. Methods: In this article, I review the current conventional definitions of, and historical debates over, the meaning(s) of 'population,' trace back the contemporary emphasis on populations as statistical rather than substantive entities to Adolphe Quetelet's powerful astronomical metaphor, conceived in the 1830s, of l'homme moyen (the average man), and argue for an alternative definition of populations as relational beings. As informed by the ecosocial theory of disease distribution, I then analyze several case examples to explore the utility of critical population-informed thinking for research, knowledge, and policy involving population health and health inequities. Findings: Four propositions emerge: (1) the meaningfulness of means depends on how meaningfully the populations are defined in relation to the inherent intrinsic and extrinsic dynamic generative relationships by which they are constituted; (2) structured chance drives population distributions of health and entails conceptualizing health and disease, including biomarkers, as embodied phenotype and health inequities as historically contingent; (3) persons included in population health research are study participants, and the casual equation of this term with 'study population' should be avoided; and (4) the conventional cleavage of 'internal validity' and 'generalizability' is misleading, since a meaningful choice of study participants must be in relation to the range of exposures experienced (or not) in the real-world societies, that is, meaningful populations, of which they are a part. Conclusions: To improve conceptual clarity, causal inference, and action to promote health equity, population sciences need to expand and deepen their theorizing about who and what makes populations and their means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Milbank Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=83878118 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00678.x Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 48 StartPage: 634 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Population history Type: general – SubjectFull: Conceptual structures Type: general – SubjectFull: Health services accessibility Type: general – SubjectFull: Mathematical models Type: general – SubjectFull: Population Type: general – SubjectFull: Public health Type: general – SubjectFull: Theory Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Who and What Is a 'Population'? Historical Debates, Current Controversies, and Implications for Understanding 'Population Health' and Rectifying Health Inequities. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: KRIEGER, NANCY IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 12 Text: Dec2012 Type: published Y: 2012 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0887378X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 90 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Milbank Quarterly Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
