Presents can come in black boxes, too

Looking Back and Moving Forward: The Evolution and Potential Opportunities for the Future of Alcohol Outlet Density Measurement

The literature consistently finds that areas with greater density of alcohol outlets (places that sell alcohol) tend to have higher levels of public health harms. However, conflicting findings arise when researchers drill down to identify the type(s) of alcohol outlets with the strongest associations with harms and the mechanisms that explain these associations. These disagreements could be a result of the outdated methods commonly used to quantify the alcohol environment: counts of the number of outlets in an area. This manuscript reviews the events and ideas that shaped the literature on the physical alcohol environment. It then defines the three main methods used to measure alcohol outlet density, conducts an exploratory factor analysis to explore the constructs underlying each method, and presents a novel conceptual framework that summarizes the three methods, their respective underlying constructs, and the setting(s) in which each may be most appropriate. The framework proposes that counts of alcohol outlets measure availability, proximity to the nearest outlet measures accessibility, and spatial access measures measure access, which comprises both availability and accessibility. We argue that researchers should consider using proximity and spatial access measures when possible and outline how doing so may present opportunities to advance theory and the design and implementation of alcohol outlet zoning regulations. Finally, this manuscript draws on research from other areas of the built environment to suggest opportunities to use novel methods to overcome common hurdles (e.g., separating subtypes of outlets, ecologic designs) and a new challenge on the horizon: home delivery.

Modern epidemiology and its discontents

The goal of this article is to present a snapshot of an ongoing debate within epidemiology, pitching opposing sides in the struggle to define the path it should follow in the years to come. The debate among epidemiologists in the mid-90s pitted those who defended the idea that epidemiology should necessarily deal with a wide context against those who believed that science and public health are better served by focusing on the individual level. Ian Hacking’s concept of styles of reasoning was used as a theoretical tool. The literature was reviewed using a core set of articles as an entry point, seeking articles that cited them, and then back-tracking the citations of the resulting set in the Scopus database. The main arguments are presented according to levels (ontological, epistemological, axiological and pragmatic), in order to show an even deeper disagreement, in the very conception of science and its relation to social issues and public policy.