Population Risk

  • Olaf Dammann
  • Benjamin Smart


In the previous chapters we have focused on metaphysical and epistemological concepts of causation, in medicine and population health. In this chapter, we discuss risk estimation, the focus of public health informatics methods. First, we introduce the concepts of risk and prediction. We contrast individual and population risk and discuss why using quantitative risk estimates in individuals is problematic. We describe methods for risk estimation in population health science and conclude with the proposal that risk estimation is giving a causal explanation in population health science.


Risk Prediction Estimation Causation Explanation 


  1. 223.
    Malmfors T, Rosing H. Introduction – risk from a philosophy of science point of view. Toxicology. 2002;181-182:109–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 28.
    Savitz DA. Interpreting epidemiologic evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 224.
    Ropeik D, Gray G. Risk : a practical guide for deciding what’s really safe and what’s dangerous in the world around you. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002. 485 p.Google Scholar
  4. 225.
    Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236(4799):280–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 226.
    Holton GA. Defining risk. Financ Anal J. 2004;60(6):19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 22.
    Miettinen OS. Theoretical epidemiology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 227.
    Rockhill B. The privatization of risk. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(3):365–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 32.
    Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295–300.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 228.
    Li G, et al. Age, flight experience, and risk of crash involvement in a cohort of professional pilots. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(10):874–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 229.
    Rockhill B, Kawachi I, Colditz GA. Individual risk prediction and population-wide disease prevention. Epidemiol Rev. 2000;22(1):176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 230.
    Grossi E. Medical concepts related to individual risk are better explained with plausibility rather than probability. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2005;5:31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 231.
    Rothwell PM, et al. Treating individuals 3: from subgroups to individuals: general principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy. Lancet. 2005;365(9455):256–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 232.
    Dammann O, et al. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia is not associated with ultrasound-defined cerebral white matter damage in preterm newborns. Pediatr Res. 2004;55:319–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 233.
    Tolsma KW, et al. Neonatal bacteremia and retinopathy of prematurity: the ELGAN study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(12):1555–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 234.
    Pearson K. The grammar of science. 2nd ed. London: A. and C. Black; 1900. xviii, 548 p.Google Scholar
  16. 235.
    Kovesdy CP, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Observational studies versus randomized controlled trials: avenues to causal inference in nephrology. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2012;19(1):11–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 236.
    Flanagan R, Dammann O. The epistemological weight of randomized-controlled trials depend on their results. Perspect Biol Med. (in press).Google Scholar
  18. 338.
    Gruer L, Hart CL, Gordon DS, Watt GC. Effect of tobacco smoking being associated with a two to fourfold increased mortality risk, even when adjusted for social position: a 28 year cohort study. BMJ. 2009;338:b480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olaf Dammann
    • 1
  • Benjamin Smart
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Community MedicineTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  2. 2.The African Centre for Epistemology and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations