1. What are possible reasons locations in epidemiological research have not been incorporated as much as other components in epidemiological research?
= In my opinion, limitations in data availability and quality, along with privacy concerns, are the most likely reasons for limiting the incorporation of locations in epidemiological research. Obtaining high-quality spatial data requires significant resources, including personnel, data collection devices, and funding, and it is a time-consuming process. Additionally, location data can reveal personal information about subjects. Therefore, ensuring informed consent for the use of detailed location data is a significant concern that limits the use of location information in spatial epidemiological research.
How can spatial epidemiology be considered as an interdisciplinary science?
= Because the purpose of using spatial epidemiology is to understand how health and disease spread in different areas (locations), the combination of multiple types of data, including epidemiological, clinical, geographic, and even environmental data, needed to be collected and analyzed to get the results. Therefore, spatial epidemiology is considered to be an interdisciplinary science.
2. Explain why it is widely recognized that the place where an individual lives or works should be considered as a potential disease determinant and give some examples?
= The place where an individual lives or works usually influences their health conditions, acting as a potential disease determinant. As mentioned in the paper, an individual who lives in a poor environment (e.g., poor sanitation, pollutants, low socioeconomic status) tends to experience negative health outcomes. This conclusion can be illustrated by John Snow’s investigation of the cholera outbreak in London in 1854. The poor management of a water pump’s sanitation led to its contamination with cholera. People living near the contaminated pump used it and contracted the disease, which eventually turned into an outbreak. Also, the investigation showed that living closer to the contaminated water pump led to a higher number of infected people, highlighting the significant impact of living and working environments on health outcomes.