Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27481163›Full record

ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2016

Social Welfare Policy and Inequalities in Health. Preconceived Truths in Scientific Research.

Enrique Regidor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Enrique RegidorDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva, Salud Pública e Historia de la Ciencia, Facultad Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid and CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP). Madrid.enriqueregidor@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At the end of the first decade of the present century debates arose in social epidemiology. These debates set those who defend the existence of a relation between the political and/or welfare stage regime and the magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities in health against those who maintain the facts do not support such a relation. These debates are similar to other debates in epidemiology in the 1990s related with theories of how diseases are produced and the factors that determine their distribution in the population. Whereas some authors find it impossible to separate ethical and political aspects and professional values from scientific arguments, others consider that epidemiologists and other scientists should make an effort to distinguish between scientific and unscientific considerations. In this paper the author reflects about the harmony that keep science, politics and ethics in the scientific practice on health inequalities, although the empirical evidence is contrary to that harmonious effect.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic MethodsHealth Status DisparitiesPublic PolicyResearchSocial WelfareBiasEthicsHumansSocioeconomic FactorsSpainEuropeHealth and welfare planningHealthcare DisparitiesHealth InequalitiesMortalitySocioeconomic factorsSpain

Identifiers

PMID27481163
PMCPMC11587299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.