Research methods, evidence and public health

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 337-342

  Kavanagh, Anne ^a   Daly, Jeanne ^a   Jolley, Damien ^b  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; COOPERATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; POLITICS; PUBLIC HEALTH;

AUSTRALIA; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; POLITICS; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 0036676252     PISSN: 13260200     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2002.tb00181.x     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Susser M. The logic in ecological: II. the logic of design. Am J Public Health 1994;84(5):830-5.
2. Krieger N. Epidemiology and the web of causation: Has anyone seen the spider? Soc Sci Med 1994;39:887-903.
3. Aviles L. Epidemiology as discourses: The politics of development institutions in the Epidemiological Profile of El Salvador. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:164-71.
4. Weed D. Methods in epidemiology and public health: Does practice match theory? J Epidemiol Community Health 2000;55:104-10.
5. Diez Roux A. Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health 1998;88:216-22.
6. Kawachi I, Kennedy B. Health and social cohesion: Why care about income inequality. Br Med J 1997;314:1037-40.
7. McCullough J. First comprehensive survey of NSF applicants focuses on their concerns about proposal review. Sci Technol Hum Values 1989;14(1):78-88.
8. Travis G, Collins H. New light on old boys: Cognitive institutional particularism in the peer review system. Sci Technol Hum Values 1991;16(3):322-41.
9. Daniel M, Green L, Sheps S. Paradigm change and uncertainty about funding of public health research: Social and scientific implication. J Health Soc Policy 1998;10(2):39-56.
10. Krieger N. The making of public health data: Paradigms, politics and policy. J Public Health Policy 1992;Winter:412-27.
11. Haraway D. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Natural Science. New York: Routledge, 1989.
12. Lomas J. Social capital and health: Implications for public health and epidemiology. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:1181-8.
13. Pearce N. Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology and public health. Am J Public Health 1996;86(5):678-83.
14. Rothman K, Adami H, Trichopoulos D. Should the mission of epidemiology include the eradication of poverty? Lancet 1998;352:810-3.
15. Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution? Br Med J 1997;315:759-60.
16. Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 1997;387:341-43.
17. Kraus N. Scientific world's low tolerance for controversy may be what's excluding young investigators. The Scientist 1994;8:13.
18. Daly J. The micropolitics of qualitiative health research funding. Ann Rev Health Soc Sci 1998;8:18-24.
19. Morris P. Randomised controlled trials addressing Aboriginal health needs: A systematic review of the literature. J Paediatr Child Health 1999;35: 130-5.
20. Hayward S, Ciliska D, DiCenso A, Thomas H, Underwood E, Rafael A. Evaluation research in public health: Barriers to the production and dissemination of outcomes data. Can J Public Health 1996;87(6):413-7.
21. Chopra M, Sanders D. Asking "how?" rather than "what, why, where and who?" Br Med J 2000;321:832.
22. Horrobin D. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263(10):1438-41.
23. Mitroof I, Cubin DE. Peer review and the NSF: A Dialectical Policy analysis. Soc Stud Sci 1979;9:199-232.
24. Norman K. The importance of factors in the peer-review of grant proposals. J Appl Psychol 1986;71:156-62.
25. Hargens L. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. Am Soc Rev 1988;53(1):139-51.
26. Campanario JM. Commentary: On influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Sci Commun 1995;16(3):304-25.
27. Wessely S. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 1998;352:301-5.
28. Platt J. A History of Sociological Research Methods in America 1920-1960. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1998.