What Has the Pandemic Revealed about the Shortcomings of Modern Epidemiology? What Can We Fix or Do Better?

The challenges of epidemiologic translation: communicating with physicians, policymakers, and the public

Translational epidemiology refers to the practical application of population-health research findings to efforts addressing health disparities and other public health issues. A principal focus of epidemiologic translation is on the communication of results to constituencies who can best make use of this information to effect positive health-related change. Indeed, it is contended that findings from epidemiologic research are of greatest use only if adequately communicated to health professionals, legislators and policymakers, and the public. This paper details the challenges faced by efforts to communicate findings to the these constituencies, especially three types of miscommunication that can derail efforts at translation. These include perceived misinformation, perceived disinformation, and perceived censorship. Epidemiologists are ethically obliged to avoid these types of miscommunication, and, accordingly, are advised to place greater emphasis on messaging and media outreach to physicians, government officials, medical educators, and the general public.

Invited Commentary: Some Social Epidemiologic Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic

In their recent article, Dimitris et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(6):980-986) presented a series of challenges modern epidemiology has faced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including challenges around the scientific progress, epidemiologic methods, interventions, equity, team science, and training needed to address these issues. Here, 2 social epidemiologists who have been working on COVID-19 inequities reflect on further lessons with an added year of perspective. We focus on 2 key challenges: 1) dominant biomedical individualistic narratives around the production of population health, and 2) the role of profit in policy-making. We articulate a need to consider social epidemiologic approaches, including acknowledging the importance of considering how societal systems lead to health inequities. To address these challenges, future (and current) epidemiologists should be trained in theories of population health distribution and political structures of governance. Last, we close with the need for better investment in public health infrastructure as a crucial step toward achieving population health equity.

Invited Commentary: Modern Epidemiology Confronts COVID-19-Reflections From Psychiatric Epidemiology

Dimitris et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(6):980-986) outline how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has, with mixed results, put epidemiology under the spotlight. While epidemiologic theory and methods have been critical in many successes, the ongoing global death toll from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the sometimes chaotic public messaging underscore that epidemiology as a field has room for improvement. Here, we use examples from psychiatric epidemiologic studies conducted during the COVID-19 era to reflect on errors driven by overlooking specific major methodological advances of modern epidemiology. We focus on: 1) use of nonrepresentative sampling in online surveys, which limits the potential knowledge to be gained from descriptive studies and amplifies collider stratification bias in causal studies; and 2) failure to acknowledge multiple versions of exposures (e.g., lockdown, school closure) and differences in prevalence of effect measure modifiers across contexts, which causes violations of the consistency assumption and lack of effect transportability. We finish by highlighting: 1) the heterogeneity of psychiatric epidemiologic results during the pandemic across place and sociodemographic groups and over time; 2) the importance of following the foundational advancements of modern epidemiology even in emergency settings; and 3) the need to limit the role of political agendas in cherry-picking and reporting epidemiologic evidence.