Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion

Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion Hello, I need help with my public health discussion post. There is only 1 that I need done by Thursday. The assignment is straight forward, read the articles that I have attached and summarize them. I have attached the article and the assignment guidelines in the pdfs. You must read pages 1 to 17 on the attached document for the reading post. Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion screen_shot_2020_11_17_at_11.01.45_am.png berkman_2014_read_pages_1_to_17.pdf 6/23/2020 Social Network Epidemiology – Oxford Medicine Social Epidemiology (2 ed.) Edited by Lisa F. Berkman, Ichiro Kawachi, and M. Maria Glymour Publisher: Oxford University Press Print ISBN-13: 9780195377903 DOI: 10.1093/med/9780195377903.001.0001 Print Publication Date: Jul 2014 Published online: Mar 2015 Social Network Epidemiology Chapter: Social Network Epidemiology Author(s): Lisa F. Berkman and Aditi Krishna DOI: 10.1093/med/9780195377903.003.0007 A decade ago social epidemiologists rarely incorporated the most novel social network methods into their work. It was not due to lack of knowledge about these approaches; rather, it was rare for epidemiologists to commit to the lengthy assessments involved in stronger approaches to network analysis. On the other side of this disciplinary boundary, social scientists were often relatively naïve about health assessments and rarely incorporated novel biomarker assessments into their approaches. In fact, the subarea of sociology related to health issues generally was identified as medical sociology and was primarily oriented toward understanding the ways in which healthcare organization and patient behaviors were dynamically intertwined. All this has changed over the last fifteen years. The greatest strides in this area have come about because vigorous sociocentric approaches—approaches in which entire networks have been mapped—have been incorporated into large-scale studies with strong health assessments. Furthermore, demographers during this period have become much more centrally involved in understanding socioeconomic conditions, family dynamics, and mortality. Both epidemiologists and sociologists have incorporated each other’s strongest approaches with growing success. Notable among the studies that have integrated social network assessments, health, and biomarkers are the Framingham Study, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a number of HIV-related studies, and an increasing presence of sociocentric methods in the prevention programs and in aging studies in Europe (the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe [SHARE] and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing [ELSA]). These new studies have used both egocentric models in which only direct links to individual participants are identified as well as https://oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780195377903.001.0001/med-9780195377903-chapter-7?print 1/71 6/23/2020 Social Network Epidemiology – Oxford Medicine sociocentric models of entire networks where the spread of disease and behaviors can be studied. During this same period, a large body of work produced by social psychologists on social isolation and loneliness has also flourished and has changed the landscape, reinforcing the importance of perceptions in mediating impacts on health and well-being. This chapter is devoted to incorporating findings from these studies and methods into mainstream discussions in social epidemiology Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion . Our ability to identify the causal impact of social relations has also increased substantially in the last 10–15 years. In large part, this is the result of much more nuanced work on issues of causal inference building on recent methodological advances in observational studies and the analysis of several large-scale randomized experiments (1, 2, 3). The results of many of the randomized trials in which morbidity or mortality were outcomes have yielded null or very weak results—calling into question the impact of social network interventions. These findings challenge the notion of a causal impact or our ability to actually alter networks and support during important etiologic periods. New work incorporating lifecourse approaches has also begun to flourish, and we see that social relationships, not surprisingly, are often formed in childhood or early adulthood, and relational skills are built even earlier. Thus, it is critical to incorporate lifecourse approaches into network epidemiology. Although this issue has been raised frequently enough, there is still less work in this area in contrast to the fuller incorporation of stronger network assessments. The specifics of the network/support intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and contested areas of causal inference are discussed in Chapter 11 on psychosocial interventions. The evidence linking the influence of social relationships—defined broadly as the degree to which individuals are interconnected and embedded in communities—on health and longevity is now enormous. Furthermore, the disciplinary divisions among social epidemiology, sociology, and social psychology are increasingly blurred as all disciplines incorporate both observational and experimental designs into their work and add physiological and clinical assessments to large and small studies alike. A rich combination of observations and theoretical literature on social integration, attachment, and social networks led us originally to test these ideas empirically. Humans are social animals; the need for intimacy, nurturance, and connection is built into our being. Now, over 35 years after John Cassel (4), Sidney Cobb (5), and other seminal thinkers in social epidemiology suggested that this was a critical area of investigation, and 20 years after the earliest studies in Alameda County, California; Tecumseh, Michigan; and Durham County, North Carolina, revealed the influence of social relationships on mortality (6, 7, 8), it is time to take stock of the vast literature on this topic. A recent metaanalytic review identified 148 studies on the topic of social ties and mortality (9). Our aim is to revisit some of the seminal theories that have guided empirical work, and to revise and reformulate some of those ideas, especially in light of the more recent sociocentric approaches and results of RCTs, and to point the way toward productive lines of inquiry for the future. When investigators write about the impact of social relationships or, more specifically, of social networks on health, many terms are used loosely and interchangeably, including social networks, social support, social isolation, and social integration. A major aim of this chapter is to define and clarify these terms. We discuss (1) theoretical orientations from diverse disciplines that are fundamental to advancing research in this area; (2) an overarching model that integrates multilevel systems or structures; (3) a set of definitions accompanied by major assessment tools; (4) some of the strongest findings linking social networks or support to morbidity, mortality, or functioning; and finally, (5) a series of recommendations for future work. Since there are now numerous books and literature reviews on networks, support, and Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion https://oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780195377903.001.0001/med-9780195377903-chapter-7?print 2/71 6/23/2020 Social Network Epidemiology – Oxford Medicine health (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23), our aim is not to be all-inclusive but rather to highlight work that has substantially advanced our thinking in this area and to give the reader a sense of the range and depth of this literature, now a body several decades in the making. Theoretical Orientations Several theories form the bedrock for the empirical investigation of social relationships and their influences on health. The earliest theories came from sociologists such as Émile Durkheim as well as from psychoanalysts such as John Bowlby, who first formulated attachment theory. A major wave of conceptual development came from anthropologists, including Elizabeth Bott, John Barnes, and Clyde Mitchell, and quantitative sociologists such as Claude Fischer, Edward Laumann, Barry Wellman, and Peter Marsden, who, along with others, developed social network analysis. This eclectic mix of theoretical approaches, coupled with the work on stress early on by Cannon and Selye and later by McEwen, Cohen, and Cacioppo (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32), addresses the protective roles of social resources and support within the context of research on stress. Combined with this work, the contributions of social epidemiologists John Cassel and Sidney Cobb form the foundation of research on social ties and health. Social Network Analysis: A New Way of Looking at Social Structure and Community During the mid-1950s, a number of British anthropologists found it increasingly difficult to understand the behavior of either individuals or groups on the basis of traditional categories such as kin groups, tribes, and villages. Barnes (33) and Bott (34) developed the concept of “social networks” to analyze ties that cut across traditional kinship, residential, and class groups to explain behaviors they observed such as finding jobs, political activity, and social roles. The development of social network models provided a way to view the structural properties of relationships among people with no constraints or expectations that these relationships occurred only among bounded groups defined a priori. As this work and the work of other European post–World War II sociologists became known in the United States, American sociologists extended the concept of social network analysis, incorporating into it their more quantitative orientation. Wellman (35), in several historical reviews of the development of social network analysis, has described “the network” of network analysis. A strong center started at Harvard under Harrison White and Charles Tilly and extended to their graduate students: Edward Laumann (36) went to the University of Chicago, Barry Wellman (37) to the University of Toronto, and Mark Granovetter (38) and Claude Fischer (39, 40) to the University of California, Berkeley. These sociologists developed what has come to be known as an egocentric network approach to social network analysis, in which the structure and function of networks are assessed from the perspective of an individual. Network analysis “focuses on the characteristic patterns of ties between actors in a social system rather than on characteristics of the individual actors themselves. Analysts search for the structure of ties underlying what often appears to be incoherent surface appearances and use their descriptions to study how these social structures constrain network members’ behavior” (41). Network analysis addresses the structure and composition of the network and the contents or specific resources that flow through those networks. Social network analysis includes analyses of both egocentric networks with an individual at the https://oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780195377903.001.0001/med-9780195377903-chapter-7?print 3/71 6/23/2020 Social Network Epidemiology – Oxford Medicine center and entire sets of networks at the level of communities or workplaces. Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion The analysis of entire networks employs sociocentric approaches, the study of entire bounded communities where network relationships of entire schools, towns, or workplaces are identified. The strength of social network theory rests on the testable assumption that the social structure of the network itself is largely responsible for determining individual behavior and attitudes by shaping the flow of resources or information that determine access to opportunities and constraints on behavior. Network theorists share many of the central assumptions of Durkheim and the structural functionalists. The central similarity is the view that the structure of social institutions shapes the resources available to the individual and hence that person’s behavioral and emotional responses. Another contribution of network theory is the observation, initially made by Barnes and Bott that the structure of networks may not always conform to preconceived notions of what constitutes “community” defined on the basis of geographic or kinship criteria. Thus, Wellman argues that the essence of community is its social structure, not its spatial structure (42). By assessing actual ties between network members, one can empirically test whether community exists and whether that community is defined on the basis of neighborhood, kinships, friendship, institutional affiliation, or other characteristics. This emphasis is shared by Durkheim (43), who describes a shift from mechanical solidarity (based on kinship ties) to organic solidarity (based on rational exchange-based ties) as the basis of social organization. Social Integration, Alienation, and Anomie: Durkheim’s Contribution Suicide varies inversely with degree of integration of the social groups of which the individual forms a part. —Émile Durkheim (44) Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist working late in the nineteenth century, was one of the founding fathers of sociology. Durkheim’s contribution to the study of the relationship between society and health is immeasurable. Perhaps most important is the contribution he made to the understanding of how social integration and social cohesion influence mortality. Durkheim’s primary aim was to explain individual pathology as a function of social dynamics. In light of emerging attention to “upstream” determinants of health in the mid-1990s (45), Durkheim was indeed ahead of his time. While a professor at the University of Bordeaux, Durkheim wrote three of his four most important books: The Division of Labor in Society (43), The Rules of Sociological Method (46), and Suicide (44). Suicide lays the framework for understanding the role of social integration in health. Building on The Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim challenges himself to understand how the patterning of one of the most psychological, intimate, and, on the surface, individual acts rests on the patterning of “social facts.” As noted by Bierstedt (47), it is as if Durkheim chooses for himself the hardest of challenges to prove the power of social phenomena to influence what seem to be individual acts. In Suicide, Durkheim shows how “social facts” can be used to explain changing patterns of aggregate tendency toward suicide. He argues that individuals are bonded to society by two forms of integration: attachment and regulation. Attachment is the extent to which an individual maintains ties with members of society. Regulation involves the extent to which an individual is held in the fabric of society by its values, beliefs, and norms (48). Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion Because https://oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780195377903.001.0001/med-9780195377903-chapter-7?print 4/71 6/23/2020 Social Network Epidemiology – Oxford Medicine Durkheim’s logic and language are so elegant, in the following paragraphs we try to give the reader the flavor of his thinking as it relates to social integration and suicide. Durkheim starts his work with the observation that countries and other geographic units and social groups have very stable rates of suicide year after year: Thus, individuals making up a society change from year to year, yet the number of suicides itself does not change…the population of Paris renews itself very rapidly, yet the share of Paris in the total number of French suicides remains practically the same…the rate of military suicides varies only very slowly in a given nation….Likewise, regardless of the diversity of individual temperaments, the relation between aptitude for suicide of married persons and that of widowers and widows is identically the same in widely differing social groups. The causes which thus fix the contingent of voluntary deaths for a given society or one part of it must then be independent of individuals, since they retain the same intensity no matter what particular persons they operate on. (44) Durkheim’s contribution to our understanding of how social structure—and particularly levels of integration based on religious, family, and occupational organization—affects suicide is unparalleled. He paved the way for much of the work in this area through the development and testing of basic sociological theories that have largely survived the test of time. He viewed suicide not as an “isolated tragedy” in the life of an individual but as a reflection of conditions of society as a whole (49). Attachment Theory Across the Lifecourse: Bowlby’s Contribution All of us from the cradle to the grave are happiest when life is organized as a series of excursions, long or short, from the secure base provided by our attachment figures. —John Bowlby (50) John Bowlby has been described as one of the most important psychiatrists in the twentieth century (51). He qualified as a psychoanalyst in 1937 and soon thereafter was proposing theories to the British Psychoanalytic Society suggesting that the environment, especially in early childhood, plays a critical role in the genesis of neurosis. Early in his career, he believed that the separation of infants from their mothers was unhealthy. He saw loss and separation as key issues for psychotherapy. Bowlby proposed that there is a universal human need to form close affectional bonds (52). Between 1964 and 1979, Bowlby wrote a major trilogy, Attachment (53), Separation (54), and Loss (55), in which he laid out his theory of attachment and how it relates to both childhood and adult development. Attachment theory contends that the attached figure—most often, but not necessarily, the mother—creates a secure base from which an infant or toddler can venture forth and explore. Bowlby argued with many psychoanalysts that attachment is a “primary motivational system” (i.e., not secondary to feeding or warmth) (53). “Secure attachment,” he wrote, “provides an external ring of psychological protection which maintains the child’s metabolism in a stable state, similar to the internal homeostasis mechanisms of blood pressure and temperature control” (53). These intimate bonds created in childhood form a secure base for solid attachment in adulthood and provide prototypes for later social relations (52). Secure attachment, as opposed to avoidant, ambivalent, or disorganized attachment, allows the maintenance of affectional bonds and security in a larger system. We now have increasing Public Health Social Epidemiology Discussion https://oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780195377903.001.0001/med-9780195377903-chapter-7?print 5/71 6/23/2020 Social Network Epidemiology – Oxford Medicine evidence of the importance of such early attachment for emotional regulation and adult health (56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64). In adulthood, Bowlby saw marriage as the adult equivalent of attachment between infant and mother during childhood. If secure, marriage would provide a solid base from which to work and explore the world enmeshed in a “protective shell in times of need” (65). The strength of Bowlby’s theory lies in its articulation of an individual’s need for secure attachment for its own sake, for the love and reliability it provides, and for its own “safe haven.” Primary attachment promotes a sense of security and self-esteem that ultimately provides the basis on which the individual will form lasting and loving relationships in adult life. The ideas of attachment and loneliness are currently expressed in much of the work on loneliness by Cacioppo (12, 13, 14, 18, 66, 67). The psychosocial environment in infancy and childhood paves the way for successful development that continues through adulthood. For Bowlby, the capacity for intimacy in adult life is not a given; it is instead the result of complex dynamic forces involving attachment, loss, and reattachment. Throughout this volume, we have seen the growing importance of bringing such a lifecourse and dynamic perspective to understanding social determinants of disease. Weaving the Threads Together How do these theories from very different perspectives come together to help us develop a conceptual framework with which to examine the ways social relationships influence health? How can we hope to integ … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount