historical research in health care

Using and Accessing Primary Sources

Why Do Historical Research?
Types of sources
Forming a research topic
Locating sources
BMI 552/652
BLHD Enrichment Week
More information

Why learn about historical research?

There are many reasons to learn about the history of health sciences:

Training in health sciences history and the humanities promotes humanistic skills and demonstrates the social, economic, and political contexts of its practice.
History allows us to learn from failures or missteps of the past and embrace humility over arrogance.
Observing a tradition of exemplary health science practices cultivates a sense of camaraderie as members of a profession and promotes a sense of civic responsibility by highlighting the broader role of health science professionals in society.
Historical analysis enhances our understanding of, and widens our perspective on, diseases and institutions, teaches what and how to investigate, and may show the value of entertaining new and possibly strange ideas.

Below, you'll find multiple OHSU competencies and learning outcomes mapped to various skills learned through the course of performing historical research. For assistance with mapping specific competencies for other programs, please contact Steve Duckworth, University Archivist .

Aligning with the OHSU curriculum

Graduation Core Competencies
Public Health
Undergraduate Medical Education

Conducting historical research and learning about historical research methods can benefit students in many ways. Studying history highlights the many social contexts and connections between a person and their healthcare. The following are some student learning outcomes (SLOs) a learner might meet in the analysis of health science history. Aspects of the SLOs listed below can apply to any of OHSU's Graduation Core Competencies , but we mapped each SLO to the most relevant Core Competencies (CCs).

In the study of health sciences history and analysis of historical sources, learners will be able to:

Critically evaluate information and data. (CC: Information Literacy)
Assess information from multiple angles and through varying points of view. (CCs: Information Literacy; Community Engagement, Social Justice and Equity)
Collaborate with patients and other stakeholders, to find the ways to best improve health outcomes. (CCs: Patient Centered Care; Community Engagement, Social Justice and Equity)
Employ a systems-thinking approach to problem solving. (CCs: Professional Knowledge and Skills; Community Engagement, Social Justice and Equity)
Contribute to the development of new knowledge and practice through scholarly activity. (CC: Information Literacy)
Describe the impact of psychosocial and cultural influences on healthcare. (CCs: Community Engagement, Social Justice and Equity; Patient Centered Care)
Empathize, connect, and build trust with patients/stakeholders. (CCs: Community Engagement, Social Justice and Equity; Patient Centered Care; Communication)
Describe how learning from the mistakes of the past informs our ethical choices today. (CCs: Professional Identity and Ethical Behavior; Information Literacy)

Conducting historical research and learning about historical research methods can benefit students in many ways. The following are some student learning outcomes (SLOs) a learner might meet in the analysis of health science history. Each SLO listed below has been mapped to the most relevant OHSU School of Dentistry competencies .

In the study of health sciences history and analysis of historical sources, learners will be able to:

Critically evaluate information and data. (FK7, PA3, TP1)
Assess information from multiple angles and through varying points of view. (PA3, TP1)
Collaborate with patients and other stakeholders, to find the ways to best improve health outcomes. (COM1, COM2, TP1)
Employ a systems-thinking approach to problem solving. (PA3, TP1)
Contribute to the development of new knowledge and practice through scholarly activity. (EVAL1)
Describe the impact of psychosocial and cultural influences on healthcare. (COM1, COM2, TP2, EVAL2)
Empathize, connect, and build trust with patients/stakeholders. (PA1)
Describe how learning from the mistakes of the past informs our ethical choices today. (PC4, EVAL1)

Critically evaluate information and data. (I.4, IV.3, IV.6, IX.2)
Assess information from multiple angles and through varying points of view. (I.5, III.1)
Collaborate with patients and other stakeholders, to find the ways to best improve health outcomes. (III.4, IX.3, IX.4)
Employ a systems-thinking approach to problem solving. (I.7, II.4, II.6)
Contribute to the development of new knowledge and practice through scholarly activity. (II.2, V.6, IX.14)
Describe the impact of psychosocial and cultural influences on healthcare. (II.3, III.8, VI.1, VIII.1, IX.9)
Empathize, connect, and build trust with patients/stakeholders. (VII.3, VIII.3, IX.13)
Describe how learning from the mistakes of the past informs our ethical choices today. (I.8, IV.2, V.3, VI.3)

Critically evaluate information and data. (1.1)
Assess information from multiple angles and through varying points of view. (1.1, 3.4)
Collaborate with patients and other stakeholders, to find the ways to best improve health outcomes. (2.3, 3.2, 3.3)
Employ a systems-thinking approach to problem solving. (3.1)
Contribute to the development of new knowledge and practice through scholarly activity. (4.4)
Describe the impact of psychosocial and cultural influences on healthcare. (2.4, 3.5)
Empathize, connect, and build trust with patients/stakeholders. (3.5)
Describe how learning from the mistakes of the past informs our ethical choices today. (4.4)

Critically evaluate information and data. (3, 4)
Assess information from multiple angles and through varying points of view. (18, 19, 21)
Collaborate with patients and other stakeholders, to find the ways to best improve health outcomes. (8, 9)
Employ a systems-thinking approach to problem solving. (11)
Contribute to the development of new knowledge and practice through scholarly activity. (21, 22)
Describe the impact of psychosocial and cultural influences on healthcare. (6, 7, 8)
Empathize, connect, and build trust with patients/stakeholders. (18, 19, 20)
Describe how learning from the mistakes of the past informs our ethical choices today. (12, 15)

Critically evaluate information and data. (PC2, PLI4, 3PD11)
Assess information from multiple angles and through varying points of view. (PC2, PLI4, 3PD11)
Collaborate with patients and other stakeholders, to find the ways to best improve health outcomes. (PC5)
Employ a systems-thinking approach to problem solving. (MK5, PIC1)
Contribute to the development of new knowledge and practice through scholarly activity. (PLI1, PLI4, PLI7)
Describe the impact of psychosocial and cultural influences on healthcare. (PC5, MK4, ICS1)
Empathize, connect, and build trust with patients/stakeholders. (ICS1, ICS3, 3PD4)
Describe how learning from the mistakes of the past informs our ethical choices today. (3PD2, 3PD3, 3PD5)

Abbreviations used above for competency designation:

Patient care and procedures (PC)
Medical Knowledge (Knowledge for Practice) (MK)
Practice-based Learning and Improvement (PLI)
Interpersonal and Communication Skills (ICS)
Professionalism and Personal & Professional Development (3PD)
System-based Practice and Interprofessional Collaboration (PIC)

Additional resources and perspectives

Jones, David S., Jeremy A. Greene, Jacalyn Duffin, and John Harley Warner. “Making the Case for History in Medical Education: Fig. 1.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 70, no. 4 (2014): 623–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jru026 . (Open access: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/1/34310034/1/35654940.pdf )

Kushner, Howard I. “History as a Medical Tool.” The Lancet 371, no. 9612 (February 2008): 552–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60259-7 .

Kushner, Howard I. “Medical Historians and the History of Medicine.” The Lancet 372, no. 9640 (August 2008): 710–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61293-3 .

Patel, Parth M, and Sukumar P Desai. “A Clinician's Rationale for the Study of History of Medicine.” The journal of education in perioperative medicine: JEPM 16, no, 4 (2014): E070. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4719553 (PDF: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.seahq.org/resource/resmgr/JEPM/XVI/XVI_4_Patel.pdf )

Sokol, Daniel K. “Perspective: Should We Amputate Medical History?:” Academic Medicine 83, no. 12 (December 2008): 1162–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31818c6610 .

<< Previous: Home
Next: Historical Research >>
Last Updated: Aug 23, 2024 2:52 PM
URL: https://libguides.ohsu.edu/primarysourceguide

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Publications
Account settings
Advanced Search
Journal List

A Historical Overview of Health Disparities and the Potential of eHealth Solutions

Michael c gibbons , md, mph.

Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information

Corresponding author.

Received 2005 Jul 20; Revision requested 2005 Sep 15; Revised 2005 Sep 19; Accepted 2005 Sep 20; Collection date 2005 Oct-Dec.

Over the past decade, a rapidly expanding body of literature has demonstrated the existence of disparities in health and health care. While consensus has not emerged regarding the causes of disparities, they are generally thought to be related to sociocultural, behavioral, economic, environmental, biologic, or societal factors. To effectively address disparities, several authorities have suggested the need for greater information technology research and investments. eHealth researchers may be able to make significant contributions in this area through research and its applications. This paper begins with a historical overview of health disparities in the United States and Europe. It then discusses the role that the Internet, and access to the Internet, may play in the genesis of health disparities. Finally, this paper closes with a discussion of the potential benefits of eHealth applications and the possible contributions of the field to overcoming disparities in health and health care.

Keywords: access to information, socioeconomic factors, Internet, disparities, eHealth, minorities

International Origins

Over the past decade, a rapidly expanding body of scientific evidence has been put forth documenting differences in health status among US racial and ethnic groups. Evidence has also mounted suggesting that these differences may be related to both medical and nonmedical determinants. Internationally, however, neither the evidence nor the realization of a link between nonmedical sociobehavioral factors and health outcomes is new. The earliest reported observation of a hypothesized association between socioenvironmental risk factors and health outcomes occurred in Italy over three centuries ago when Bernardino Ramazzini detailed an unusually high frequency of breast cancer in Catholic nuns [ 1 ]. Not long thereafter, in 1775, British surgeon Sir Percival Pott reported a cluster of scrotal cancer cases among British chimney sweeps [ 1 ].

By the mid 19th century, large-scale epidemiologic evidence began to corroborate these early observations. In 1840, Edwin Chadwick, British civil servant and statistician, demonstrated mortality differentials between the social classes living in Liverpool, England. Chadwick asserted that these differences were likely due to poverty and lifestyle factors common to the poorer working classes [ 2 ]. German physician Rudolph Virchow went a step further when, in 1849, he asserted that, because diseases of the populace are traceable to defects in society, the focus of medicine should shift from changing the individual to that of changing the society [ 3 ]. Finally, in France, French physician Louis Villerme recommended improving school and working conditions as social interventions that would reduce class differences in mortality [ 3 ]. Thus, in Europe, by the beginning of the 20th century, the existence of class variations in morbidity and mortality were clearly evident in the scientific literature [ 2 ].

Throughout the 20th century, the study of social class differences in health status continued across Europe, especially in Britain were epidemiologists began using decennial census data to evaluate national mortality trends. The insights gained from these analyses enabled them to construct an occupational social class grading system that correlated inversely with infant mortality. It also was the basis of the claim made by the Registrar General of Britain that at least 40% of British infant mortality was entirely preventable if the social conditions of poor infants could be elevated to that of upper-class infants [ 2 ].

Two British researchers, Titmuss and Logan, evaluated regional class-based mortality trends and documented that the disparity in infant mortality rates between upper- and lower-class infants continued to increase from 1910 to 1950 [ 2 ]. This data, along with the Depression and World War II, encouraged the British government, in 1942, to respond by instituting the welfare state and promoting several policy initiatives designed to address the “five giants of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness” [ 2 , 4 ]. Despite this government investment, however, problems attributable to social inequalities and inadequate access to health care persisted. In fact, by the mid 1970s, some 30 years later, the evidence seemed to indicate that the problems were still increasing and that the health of British citizens was slipping behind that of other industrialized nations [ 4 ]. Thus, in 1977, the British government formed the Research Working Group on Inequalities in Health and selected Sir Douglas Black as its chair. The committee’s report, issued three years later in 1980, became known as the Black Report, and it represents the first attempt by a national government to systematically study, understand, and explain health inequalities [ 4 ]. In summary, the health improvement recommendations of the report emphasized the need to improve the physical and the social environment in which the poor and lower classes lived [ 4 ].

Domestic Recognition

Across the Atlantic in the United States, scientific evidence from several lines of inquiry examining outcomes and patterns of health care delivered to defined populations began to converge and suggest the importance of the socioenvironment in determining health outcomes. Researchers using small area analysis and geographic information systems analytic techniques demonstrated that a significant amount of nonrandom practice variability existed between clinical practices in different geographic locales, despite treating clinically similar patients [ 5 , 6 ]. As public awareness grew, the US government became involved. In 1984, the US Department of Health and Human Services released a report on the health of the nation, entitled “Health, United States, 1983” [ 7 ]. The report documented that, while the overall health of the nation showed significant progress, major disparities existed in “the burden of death and illness experienced by blacks and other minority Americans as compared with the nation's population as a whole” [ 7 ].

In response to the disparities identified in the report, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services established a task force on black and minority health—the first time that the US government formed a group of experts to conduct a comprehensive study of minority health problems. In 1985, release of the “Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and Minority Health” significantly raised awareness of the disparate health of the country’s minority groups as compared to the white majority population [ 8 ].

Large epidemiologic studies like the Harvard Medical Practice Study emerged, documenting that a significant portion of practice variability could be classified as substandard care and that there was a correlation between substandard care and health care centers treating substantial numbers of poor and minority patients [ 9 - 11 ].

The emerging problems of differential outcomes and health status were not limited however to minorities and the poor. The Whitehall studies of a large cohort of British civil servants had convincingly demonstrated that a social class–based health gradient existed even among the well educated and employed [ 12 ]. Additionally, it became increasingly recognized that certain community and societal level factors, including stress [ 13 , 14 ], early life experiences [ 15 ], social capital [ 16 ], and income inequality [ 17 , 18 ] seemed to exert significant effects on health and disease outcomes independent of personal behavior [ 3 , 19 ].

Soon, major philanthropic and advocacy organizations, including The Commonwealth Fund, The Kaiser Family Commission, the Kellogg Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and The California Endowment began major initiatives designed to address issues related to disparities and health care quality [ 20 ].

By the late 1990s, the scientific evidence seemed to indicate that issues of disparity, practice variation, substandard care, and socioenvironmental determinants of health may all be related to the quality of health care experienced by patients. Friscella published his paper entitled “Inequality in Quality,” in which he called attention to issues of health care quality and health care disparities as related issues of health care organizational capacity. He further contended that national efforts to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health care and national health care quality improvement initiatives represented two inseparable components of providing high-quality health care for all citizens [ 21 ].

Synthesizing the Scientific Evidence on Health Disparities

As the domestic evidence for population differences continued to accumulate, definitions of disparities were nonstandardized, and racial categorizations became increasingly criticized as being imprecise and biologically meaningless [ 22 , 23 ]. While multiple definitions are still in current use, disparities are generally held to be population differences in (1) environmental exposures, (2) health care access, utilization, or quality, (3) health status, or (4) health outcomes [ 24 ]. As alluded to above, within the US health care system these differences have most convincingly been demonstrated across racial and ethnic lines (whites vs minorities); however, disparities based on other categorizations have also been described, including geography (urban vs rural) [ 25 ], gender (male vs female) [ 26 , 27 ], socioeconomic status (poor vs nonpoor) [ 28 , 29 ], and age (nonelderly vs elderly) [ 30 ].

Health disparities are generally thought to be related to the health care system and other social factors. Several lines of investigation examining the socioenvironment and the clinical encounter give evidence of differences in the quality of care received by many racial and ethnic minorities. While these factors have been described as “causes” and are likely to be important in the genesis of disparities, scientifically validated evidence of definitive causal pathways and the underlying biologic mechanisms is largely lacking [ 31 ].

To help bring clarity to these issues, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released the first of several reports highlighting and summarizing the scientific evidence concerning issues of differential health status, culture, behavior, communication, substandard care/medical errors, and health care quality [ 32 - 37 ]. The work of the IOM on disparity issues culminated with the 2003 release of a report entitled “Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care” [ 38 ]. In this report, the IOM Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care was charged with assessing the extent and potential sources of racial and ethnic disparities in health care that are not otherwise attributable to access to care, ability to pay, or insurance coverage. The committee was also to provide recommendations regarding potential interventions to eliminate health care disparities [ 38 ]. The committee found that, within the United States, even among individuals with access to care, significant racial and ethnic disparities indeed existed and were related to historic and contemporary social and economic inequality, discrimination, and a fragmented US system of health care [ 38 ]. While the release of this report has engendered significant public, media, and academic interest, likely ensuring that efforts to understand and eliminate disparities will continue at least into the foreseeable future, the magnitude and intransigence of the problem, the complexity of its causal pathways, and its resistance to intervention efforts are only beginning to be realized [ 32 ].

Digital Disparities

Since the mid-1990s when the World Wide Web became a powerful part of America’s communications and information culture, there has been great concern that the nation’s racial minorities would be further disadvantaged because Internet access was not spreading as quickly in the African-American community as it was in the white community. Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Irving said the following in his introduction to “Falling Through the Net,” the 1999 Department of Commerce Study on the digital divide (the divide between those with access to new information technologies and those without): “[The digital divide] is now one of America’s leading economic and civil rights issues” [ 39 ]. This report found that, although, overall, the number of Americans connected to the nation’s information infrastructure was soaring, a digital divide existed between whites and African-Americans in terms of their access to the Internet, and that, in many cases, the divide was widening over time. A follow-up study revealed a persistent but substantially narrowed gap, with large increases in computer ownership and Internet use across most major demographic populations [ 40 ]. The most recent survey, released in 2003, indicated a significant slowing in the growth of the number of Internet users since late 2001 [ 41 ]. Overall, 42% of surveyed individuals did not use the Internet, and significant utilization differences remained according to race, education, income, and geography (urban vs rural) [ 41 ]. Generally, whites are more connected than African-Americans and Hispanics. Even at equivalent levels of income, African-Americans are less likely to be online than whites or Hispanics. In fact, over the period of this study (mid-2000 to mid-2002), the composition of the non-Internet user group did not change substantially [ 41 ]. Interestingly, 56% of nonusers said they did not ever plan to go online and cited the cost of computers or Internet access, fear of fraud, credit card theft, or pornography as the major reasons for avoiding Internet use [ 41 ].

Recently, there has been a significant increase in the public availability of computers and Internet access at schools, public libraries, and workplaces [ 42 ]. Thus, conclusions regarding the extent of a digital disparity based on data considering only home-based access may be limited. Despite this reality, Internet availability in the home is accepted as an important indicator of equitable access among population groups [ 42 ]. In addition, access in public settings may be problematic because of computer monitoring in the workplace, privacy and confidentiality concerns, and the facilities’ hours of operation. Because of the potentially sensitive nature of health-related uses of the Internet, access at home is thought to be essential [ 42 ].

Several studies have shown that access to the Internet correlates with income level and educational attainment [ 39 - 42 ]. As with racial and ethnic differences, Internet utilization is increasing in all income brackets. The largest increases are seen in the higher income categories. All things considered, household incomes above US$50000 are positively associated with Internet utilization [ 41 ]. Beyond socioeconomic issues, some researchers have speculated that African-Americans have had less access to the Internet because they participate to a greater degree in entertainment-oriented technologies like television, rather than in information technologies. They argue that relatively high proportions of African-Americans use radio and television, but a relatively low proportion read newspapers [ 40 ]. As suggested above, the primary reasons why some groups have less access to information technology and resources are related to geography, literacy, disability, local infrastructure requirements, and cultural differences [ 43 ], some of which are not easily overcome simply by increasing personal computer ownership. Even if equity in personal computer and Internet access were achieved, emerging evidence suggests that online habits may vary by race and ethnicity. For example, online African-Americans are more likely than online whites to have (1) searched for information about major life issues such as researching new jobs and finding places to live, (2) used entertainment online, (3) used the Internet to obtain health information, and (4) searched for religious or spiritual information [ 40 ]. On the other hand, African-Americans with access to the Internet do not go online as often on a typical day as whites do, and they do not participate on a daily basis in most Web activities at the same level as online whites [ 40 ].

As information technology plays an ever-increasing role in Americans’ economic and social lives, the potential health implications of these findings need to be more clearly evaluated because the prospect that some people will be left behind in the information age may have serious repercussions [ 44 ]. Persistent digital disparities in access or utilization could leave some groups less able to take advantage of cutting edge innovations in population health technologies that enhance disease surveillance, environmental monitoring, food safety, emergency planning, disaster management, and geographic information systems–based tracking of environmental hazards [ 45 ].

The Role of Information Technology in Overcoming Health Disparities

One major domain of eHealth focuses on improving health communication through the use of technology. This notion of enhancing communication and understanding is a fundamental component of addressing health disparities. Among other things, the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine report call for initiatives designed to enhance patient-provider communication, trust, and cultural appropriateness of delivered care [ 38 ]. Similar goals are the basis for the Healthy People 2010 objective to increase the number of individuals with Internet access in the home. Providers, health care organizations, and public health agencies are increasingly using the Internet as a main source of information dissemination and communication [ 42 ]. This need for innovative improvements in communication should represent a significant opportunity for eHealth technologies, researchers, and interventionists, with many important implications for overcoming disparities in health and health care. Given that eHealth is currently understood as attempting to facilitate the utilization of information technologies, the Internet, and communication technology in order to facilitate behavior change, improve health care, and enhance health outcomes [ 46 ], eHealth researchers may become the catalysts needed to spur the development of transdisciplinary interventions to effectively address disparities in health and health care.

Recent advances in the computer sciences and information technology fields have spawned several methodological advances in the biological and molecular sciences (eg, DNA chip technology and microarray analysis), enabled quantum leaps in molecular and submolecular medicine, and catalyzed the emergence of whole new fields of study such as proteomics, phenomics, nutrigenomics, and pharmacogenetics. Perhaps, in like manner, with the emergence of eHealth, the behavioral and population sciences may be on the verge of a similar information technology–based scientific revolution. New eHealth solutions may soon permit the real-time integrative utilization of vast amounts of behavioral-, biological-, and community-level information in ways not previously possible. Behavioral algorithms and decision support tools for scientists could facilitate the analysis and interpretation of population level data to enable the development of “community (population) arrays” or community-wide risk profiles, which in turn could form the foundation of a new “populomics.” This population-level risk characterization could potentially go beyond the limitations of typical geographic analyses and yield insights distinctly different from risk stratification based on current methodologies. Generically, these emerging technologies have been termed population health technologies and are believed to offer significant promise [ 45 ].

These assertions are not based on mere speculation. Encouraging early evidence suggests that multimedia health communication and behavior change efforts that include the use of computers and other eHealth technologies can improve health outcomes [ 47 ]. Among other factors, the evidence suggests that applications that are tailored to the individual, participatory, personally relevant, and contextually situated will be more likely to promote behavior change [ 47 ]. On the other hand, the Internet has been implicated in the causation or persistence of disparities because of the relative lack of access of some groups and because of its current inability to deliver content that is dynamically tailored to meet the cultural, language, or literacy needs of the individual user [ 48 ]. This may be particularly true of eHealth applications that are “Internet-enabled,” requiring access to the Internet to provide the interventional content. It is conceivably possible, however, to conceptually divide eHealth applications into at least two genres: those that rely on the Internet to deliver the interventional content directly to patients (Internet-enabled), and those that only employ the Internet to facilitate transfer and utilization of data for or about content that is delivered to patients by an alternate approach. The content or interventions themselves can actually function without the Internet, but when used in the context of the Internet, they are potentially much more efficacious and far-reaching. These types of technologies could be termed “Internet-enhanced” eHealth solutions. Here the Internet would facilitate the transfer of data and information, but the tailored content could be delivered by trusted people from the users own culture or community. The actual intervention could also be administered to patients by print or multimedia applications. Thus, in terms of overcoming health disparities, issues of guaranteeing Internet access for every individual may prove to be less important than attempting to address health disparities via interventions and methodologies that lack cultural relevance. Indeed, those interventions and strategies that integrate behavioral interventions with emerging information technologies will likely be the interventions capable of cost-effectively enabling mass customization, interactivity, and convenience. Ultimately, though, the health disparities challenge for eHealth researchers remains to harness the technical capabilities of emerging information technologies in ways that support the social and cultural realities in which people work and live [ 47 ], while enhancing our ability to address the health needs of every patient [ 49 ].

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge Earl Fox for his support of the author’s work in this area.

None declared.

1. Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Cancer and the Environment; Gene-Environment Interaction. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
2. Macintyre S. The Black Report and beyond: what are the issues? Soc Sci Med. 1997 Mar;44(6):723–45. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00183-9.S0277953696001839 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
3. Amick BC, Levine S, Tarlov AR, Walsh DC. Society and Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
4. Acheson D. Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health Report. London, UK: The Stationery Office; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
5. Mcpherson K, Wennberg J E, Hovind O B, Clifford P. Small-area variations in the use of common surgical procedures: an international comparison of New England, England, and Norway. N Engl J Med. 1982 Nov 18;307(21):1310–4. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198211183072104. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
6. Barnes B A, O'brien E, Comstock C, D'arpa D G, Donahue C L. Report on variation in rates of utilization of surgical services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. JAMA. 1985 Jul 19;254(3):371–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.254.3.371. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
7. NCHS: Health, United States, 1983; and Prevention Profile. [PHS] 84-1232. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
8. Mayberry R M, Mili F, Ofili E. Racial and ethnic differences in access to medical care. Med Care Res Rev. 2000;57 Suppl 1(1):108–45. doi: 10.1177/107755800773743628. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
9. Brennan T A, Leape L L, Laird N M, Localio A R, Hiatt H H. Incidence of adverse events and negligent care in hospitalized patients. Trans Assoc Am Physicians. 1990;103:137–44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
10. Brennan T A, Leape L L, Laird N M, Hebert L, Localio A R, Lawthers A G, Newhouse J P, Weiler P C, Hiatt H H. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991 Feb 7;324(6):370–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199102073240604. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
11. Leape L L, Brennan T A, Laird N, Lawthers A G, Localio A R, Barnes B A, Hebert L, Newhouse J P, Weiler P C, Hiatt H. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991 Feb 7;324(6):377–84. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199102073240605. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
12. Marmot M G, Rose G, Shipley M, Hamilton P J. Employment grade and coronary heart disease in British civil servants. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1978 Dec;32(4):244–9. doi: 10.1136/jech.32.4.244. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
13. Marmot M G. Does stress cause heart attacks? Postgrad Med J. 1986 Jul;62(729):683–6. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.62.729.683. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
14. Sapolsky R M, Mott G E. Social subordinance in wild baboons is associated with suppressed high density lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations: the possible role of chronic social stress. Endocrinology. 1987 Nov;121(5):1605–10. doi: 10.1210/endo-121-5-1605. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
15. Tager I B, Weiss S T, Muñoz A, Rosner B, Speizer F E. Longitudinal study of the effects of maternal smoking on pulmonary function in children. N Engl J Med. 1983 Sep 22;309(12):699–703. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198309223091204. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
16. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol. 1988;94(suppl):S95–S120. [ Google Scholar ]
17. Wilkinson R G. National mortality rates: the impact of inequality? Am J Public Health. 1992 Aug;82(8):1082–4. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.8.1082. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
18. Wilkinson R G. Income distribution and life expectancy. BMJ. 1992 Jan 18;304(6820):165–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6820.165. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
19. Wilkinson RG. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequalities. New York: Routledge; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
20. Compendium of Cultural Competence Initiatives in Health Care, authors. Washington, DC: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
21. Fiscella K, Franks P, Gold M R, Clancy C M. Inequality in quality: addressing socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in health care. JAMA. 2000 May 17;283(19):2579–84. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.19.2579. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10815125 .jpp90039 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
22. Anderson Norman B, Nickerson Kim J. Genes, race, and psychology in the genome era: an introduction. Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):5–8. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.5.2005-00117-001 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
23. Smedley Audrey, Smedley Brian D. Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):16–26. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16.2005-00117-003 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
24. Carter-pokras Olivia, Baquet Claudia. What is a "health disparity"? Public Health Rep. 2002;117(5):426–34. doi: 10.1093/phr/117.5.426. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
25. Handbook of Urban Health: Populations, Methods and Practice. New York: New York Academy of Medicine; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
26. Quinn Thomas C, Overbaugh Julie. HIV/AIDS in women: an expanding epidemic. Science. 2005 Jun 10;308(5728):1582–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1112489.308/5728/1582 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
27. Mcgrath Barbara Burns, Puzan Elayne. Gender disparities in health: attending to the particulars. Nurs Clin North Am. 2004 Mar;39(1):37–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cnur.2003.11.003.S0029646503001282 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
28. Federico Monica J, Liu Andrew H. Overcoming childhood asthma disparities of the inner-city poor. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2003 Jun;50(3):655–75, vii. doi: 10.1016/S0031-3955(03)00045-2. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
29. Adler N E, Ostrove J M. Socioeconomic status and health: what we know and what we don't. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896:3–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08101.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
30. Pyle Marsha A, Stoller Eleanor P. Oral health disparities among the elderly: interdisciplinary challenges for the future. J Dent Educ. 2003 Dec;67(12):1327–36. http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=reprint&pmid=14733265 . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
31. Evans RG, Barer ML, Marmor TR. Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Population Health. New York: Aldine De Gruyter; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
32. Speaking of Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
33. Haynes M, Smedley BD. The Unequal Burden of Cancer. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
34. Envisioning the National Health Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
35. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
36. Priority Areas for National Action: Transforming Health Care Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2003. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
37. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
38. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. Unequal Treatment; Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
39. National Telecommunications and Information Administration and US Department of Commerce, authors. Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
40. Spooner T, Rainie L. African-Americans and the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
41. Lenhart A, Horrigan J, Allen K, Boyce A, Madden M, O'Grady E. The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at Internet Access and the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
42. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, authors. Healthy People 2010. 2nd edition. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
43. Eng T R, Maxfield A, Patrick K, Deering M J, Ratzan S C, Gustafson D H. Access to health information and support: a public highway or a private road? JAMA. 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1371–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.15.1371. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9794322 .jpp80018 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
44. US Department of Commerce, authors. Digital Divide Summit, Washington, DC; December 9, 1999. [2005 Oct 5]. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/summit/
45. Eng Thomas R. Population health technologies: emerging innovations for the health of the public. Am J Prev Med. 2004 Apr;26(3):237–42. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.12.004.S0749379703003696 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
46. Eng Thomas R. eHealth research and evaluation: challenges and opportunities. J Health Commun. 2002;7(4):267–72. doi: 10.1080/10810730290001747. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
47. Neuhauser L, Kreps GL. Rethinking communication in the e-health era. J of Health Psychol. 2003;8(1):7–22. doi: 10.1177/1359105303008001426. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
48. Cashen Margaret S, Dykes Patricia, Gerber Ben. eHealth technology and Internet resources: barriers for vulnerable populations. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004;19(3):209–14; quiz 215-6. doi: 10.1097/00005082-200405000-00010. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
49. Safran Charles. The collaborative edge: patient empowerment for vulnerable populations. Int J Med Inform. 2003 Mar;69(2-3):185–90. doi: 10.1016/S1386-5056(02)00130-2.S1386505602001302 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
View on publisher site
Collections

Add to Collections

IMAGES

History of Health Care Timeline by Emma Kuhrt on Prezi
The history of healthcare research
4. The History of Health Care
History of Healthcare Timeline by Sara Fredley on Prezi
Healthcare Evolution: A journey from Past (H1.0) to Present (H4.0
Historical perspective on healthcare 1.0 to 5.0.

VIDEO

The NHS’s milestones in healthcare as service turns 75
Model Livestock Institute & Veterinary Hospital Dhaka- GTV Program
Ensuring Accountability: Women in Research, Health Care, and Policy Leadership @ UNGA79
The Intersection of Health Care, History and Justice
PG Seminar on Community Outreach in Tuberculosis
Must-Have Skills for Life Sciences Students