Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
3240734
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
Causation in epidemiology
Author(s)
Parascandola, M; Weed, DL
Year
2001
Is Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Journal
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
ISSN:
0143-005X
EISSN:
1470-2738
Volume
55
Issue
12
Page Numbers
905-912
Web of Science Id
WOS:000172346700017
Abstract
Causation is an essential concept in epidemiology, yet
there is no single, clearly articulated definition for the discipline. From a systematic review
of the literature, five categories can be delineated: production, necessary and sufficient,
sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic. Strengths and weaknesses of these
categories are examined in terms of proposed characteristics of a useful scientific definition of
causation: it must be specific enough to distinguish causation from mere correlation, but not so
narrow as to eliminate apparent causal phenomena from consideration. Two categories-production
and counterfactual-are present in any definition of causation but are not themselves sufficient
as definitions. The necessary and sufficient cause definition assumes that all causes are
deterministic. The sufficient-component cause definition attempts to explain probabilistic
phenomena via unknown component causes. Thus, on both of these views, heavy smoking can be cited
as a cause of lung cancer only when the existence of unknown deterministic variables is assumed.
The probabilistic definition, however, avoids these assumptions and appears to best fit the
characteristics of a useful definition of causation. It is also concluded that the probabilistic
definition is consistent with scientific and public health goals of epidemiology. In debates in
the literature over these goals, proponents of epidemiology as pure science tend to favour a
narrower deterministic notion of causation models while proponents of epidemiology as public
health tend to favour a probabilistic view. The authors argue that a single definition of
causation for the discipline should be and is consistent with both of these aims. It is concluded
that a counterfactually-based probabilistic definition is more amenable to the quantitative tools
of epidemiology, is consistent with both deterministic and probabilistic phenomena, and serves
equally well for the acquisition and the application of scientific knowledge.
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity