Life in a herd – and why in health watching symptoms is easy, but finding causes is hard

June 11, 2018 by Will J Grant And Rod Lamberts, The Conversation
Credit: shutterstock

Everyone knows we should exercise more, drink less, and stop scoffing junk food. Even committed smokers know that smoking is bad for them – but change isn't easy.

The things that determine our health are complex and interwoven, and getting harder and harder to appreciate and communicate.

But whose responsibility is it to do this? And how can we start the right conversations? Last year we began working with The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre to look at better ways to communicate the core messages of the field of science.

Over the course of talking with health practitioners and researchers, we identified several key issues that affect how we all talk about what population health science is – and what it can do for us as a society.

But before we get into the details, let's set the scene a little.

Picnic by a river

An emergency physician, an intensive care specialist, and a population health scientist sat down for a picnic by a river.

Suddenly the doctors notice a body floating down the river!

They rush into the current to pull the man ashore, clear his airways, and start giving CPR.

But then they see another person in the water, face down. They rush out and drag her in. They clear her airways and do CPR.

But then a third body comes floating by!

Unexpectedly, the population health scientist gets up and starts running upstream along the river bank.

"Hey! Come back! Where are you going?" the others scream out to her. Looking over her shoulder she yells back:

"I'm going upstream to see who's throwing all these people in!"

A while later the population health scientist comes running back to the picnic. Dozens of treated survivors are staggering to their feet, and it looks like the other doctors have set up a mobile field hospital in place of the picnic. There's even a politician cutting some sort of ribbon!

Breathless, the population health scientist runs into the field hospital.

"I've worked out who's chucking the bodies in!" They all look up.

"It's… big alcohol companies and big tobacco companies and big sugar companies and sedentary lifestyles and bad urban design and big car companies and capitalism and our desire for comfort and lazy options and a lack of green spaces! And the fact that apples rot but chocolate bars don't. And other things! And I don't want to seem like some sort of nanny state person but if we don't do something about everything there's gunna be more bodies coming down the river!"

The other doctors, the patients and the politician glare back at the population health scientist.

"Can't you see I'm opening a grand new hospital!" the politician thumps. "Now's not the time to be pointing fingers!"

The problem

A population health scientist told us the first part of this allegory as a way to explain the big challenge of this field: that there's always a health emergency going on, and we all tend to focus far more on symptoms than causes. As a society we channel our health efforts much like those doctors dragging the bodies out of the water: focused on emergencies and cures.

In contrast, population health science wants us to look upstream, at the things that cause ill health in the first place.

Life in a herd – and why in health watching symptoms is easy, but finding causes is hard

But the second part of the allegory – which we added – also rings true. The messages of population health science are complex and diffuse, and run into challenges at the core of society. Every other day there are announcements extolling the virtues of exercise or healthy eating, or the evils of sugar or alcohol or junk food. But really, most of us already know these things.

Now we all understand that there's no such thing as a "one-size-fits-all" approach to awareness-raising and behaviour change. You have to divide and conquer, and take smaller, digestible bites out of great big problems.

But our hunch was that the problems of communicating the lessons of population health science ran deeper than that – that, as a society, we haven't had enough of the conversations about health that we need to have. Or rather, enough of the right kinds of conversations.

So we decided to built a series of podcast interviews with public health insiders.

Why this approach? Two reasons.

First, by having a relaxed chat with population health practitioners and researchers, listeners get to relate to them more as people. To hear them, rather than read them, and to get a feel for what they're like.

Second, by listening to these interviews, other population health science people might find out about aspects of their professional world that they wouldn't necessarily see via the standard meetings, papers and policy pronouncements.

You can listen to the chats here.

So what did we find out?

As we discussed the communication of, and engagement with, population health science with a range of interviewees, several things stood out.

1. Even people with the knowledge don't – or can't – always practise what they preach.

This was exemplified in a great story about an international nutritionists' conference at which the lunch was, ironically, far from the standards that nutritionists would suggest people observe. As a group they were aghast at the junk food on offer, but were eating it because that was all that was there.

2. Population health science has a naming issue.

It was often unclear to us during these chats whether we should refer to public health, population health, population health science, or epidemiology.

For people on the inside, the differences between those labels are (hopefully) clear and (definitely) important, but for us on the outside … not so much.

This name confusion probably doesn't matter to outsiders, as long as we are getting the health guidance that we want and need. So perhaps an important question for population health folk to ask themselves here is: "does it matter if people know the differences between these interrelated areas?"

But at a deeper level, does the label "public" adequately reflect the fact that the discipline is focused on all the things that affect our health beyond the chemistry and biology of our bodies, and not just what's in the "public" sphere? If my health behaviours affect your health outcomes – if my drinking or exercise creates norms in which it is more or less likely that you will drink or exercise – is that a matter of public health or "shared health"?

3. Population health science appears – as best as we could see – to be unreconciled in its political nature, and shy about its goals.

Emerging researchers in the field are often trained in engaging with the policy process (talking with bureaucrats and so on), but not with the political process.

Moreover, some spoke of the fact that, if they were asked to articulate a clear vision of what they'd like for society, they'd come up blank. Stepping towards improved population health is great, but it helps to first be confident that all of us (both inside and out) agree on the directions in which we should be stepping.

Know your tribe—and others

Life in the human herd is complex, and like it or not, we are unavoidably interdependent when it comes to our health. So conversations about the roles of population health, population health science, public , and epidemiology in this picture are critical.

But people can't have these conversations if they don't know even know what members of their own tribe are thinking, let alone what's going on in the minds of the rest of the pack, herd, mob or flock.

We aren't suggesting that we have all the answers, but we certainly hope we have contributed to expanding the conversation—have listen and tell us what you think!

Explore further: Recommendations developed for optimizing child health

Related Stories

Recommendations developed for optimizing child health

January 23, 2018
(HealthDay)—In a policy statement published online Jan. 22 in Pediatrics, recommendations are presented for increasing cooperation between pediatricians and public health professionals in order to ensure optimal health ...

Tracing trends could lead to better public health education

September 18, 2017
The educated members of a population are the trailblazers of risky behavior, but they are quicker to change their habits once the consequences of that behavior become better understood, according to new research from Penn ...

Vaping should be part of support to help smokers with mental health conditions quit

November 16, 2017
A group of health bodies and charities has called for more to be done to help smokers with mental health conditions quit, including accessing e-cigarettes and other treatments.

Will health care reform require new population health management strategies?

March 18, 2014
In response to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, employers may no long offer traditional employee health care benefits as they protect themselves from rising health care costs and seek to minimize their risk. How the shifting ...

Agriculture and health sectors collaborate to address population health

September 12, 2017
In at least 18 states around the United States, academic health science centers are partnering with cooperative extension systems to better address population health. A new report describes how these agricultural and health ...

Recommended for you

Juul e-cigarettes pose addiction risk for young users, study finds

October 19, 2018
Teens and young adults who use Juul brand e-cigarettes are failing to recognize the product's addictive potential, despite using it more often than their peers who smoke conventional cigarettes, according to a new study by ...

Self-lubricating latex could boost condom use: study

October 17, 2018
A perpetually unctuous, self-lubricating latex developed by a team of scientists in Boston could boost the use of condoms, they reported Wednesday in the journal Royal Society Open Science.

Engineered enzyme eliminates nicotine addiction in preclinical tests

October 17, 2018
Scientists at Scripps Research have successfully tested a potential new smoking-cessation treatment in rodents.

Nutrition has a greater impact on bone strength than exercise

October 17, 2018
One question that scientists and fitness experts alike would love to answer is whether exercise or nutrition has a bigger positive impact on bone strength.

How healthy will we be in 2040?

October 17, 2018
A new scientific study of forecasts and alternative scenarios for life expectancy and major causes of death in 2040 shows all countries are likely to experience at least a slight increase in lifespans. In contrast, one scenario ...

Study finds evidence of intergenerational transmission of trauma among ex-POWs from the Civil War

October 16, 2018
A trio of researchers affiliated with the National Bureau of Economic Research has found evidence that suggests men who were traumatized while POWs during the U.S. Civil War transmitted that trauma to their offspring—many ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.