Health inequality: an introduction

There is unequivocal evidence from across Australia of entrenched patterns of socio‐economic related health inequality. These patterns are seen in mortality, morbidity, health risk factors and access to preventive health services. Discussing the potential role of health promotion in addressing these health inequalities needs to be based on an agreed definition of health inequality and an understanding of the differences between health inequity and health inequality. This involves making value judgements on whether opportunities for health are fairly distributed. Health promotion practitioners need to be able to argue why they think health inequalities are important, have a clear understanding of what they think are the causes of health inequality and be informed on action that can be taken to reduce health inequality. The ever‐increasing level of information on patterns of health inequality within Australian society are likely to place increased pressure on health promotion policymakers and practitioners to ensure that their actions reduce health inequality – or at least not contribute to widening health inequality. The way in which these issues are approached will be strongly influenced by our values, the values of the organisations in which we work and the wider community. This requires each of us to be proactive in articulating our values and beliefs and being open to them being challenged.     

Assessing waterborne risks: an introduction

Information in this paper can help readers evaluate the results of epidemiologic studies of waterborne disease risks. It is important that readers understand the various epidemiologic study designs, their strengths and limitations, and potential biases. Terminology used by epidemiologists to describe disease risks can be confusing. Thus, readers should not only evaluate the adequacy of the information to estimate waterborne risks but should also understand how the risk was estimated. For example, one author's definition of attributable risk may be quite different from another author's in terms of the population to which the risk may apply and how it should be interpreted.     

Modelling in nutrition: an introduction.

The purpose of the present paper is to provide an introduction to modelling, particularly mathematical modelling, for nutritional researchers with little or no experience of the modelling process. It aims to outline the function of modelling, and to give some guidance on factors to consider when designing protocols to generate data as part of the modelling process. It is not intended in any way to be a comprehensive guide to mathematical modelling. The paper discusses the uses of modelling, and presents a 'hydrodynamic analogy' to compartmental modelling, to explain the process to the non-mathematically-minded and to examine some of the pitfalls to be avoided when using stable-isotope tracers. Examples of the use of modelling in nutrition are presented, including methods for determining absorption, as well as a discussion of possible future avenues for nutritional modelling.     

Bovine virus diarrhoea virus: an introduction

In view of the recently established genome organisation of pestiviruses, their classification as members of the togavirus family is no longer tenable. They should rather be provisionally considered as a new genus of the Flaviviridae, irrespective of differences in the nonstructural genes. Like other positive-stranded RNA viruses, pestiviruses are highly variable; apart from point mutations, recombinations are expected to contribute to their capricious behaviour. One trait of expected pathogenetic significance in infections with bovine virus diarrhoea virus is a change from the non-cytopathogenic to a cytopathogenic biotype. Cooperation of both variants in an animal to produce the severe disease picture known as mucosal disease is unique in virology; elucidation of this mechanism may shed light on the pathogenesis of other sporadic diseases with suspected viral origin.     

Pregnancy,birth and risk: an introduction

In this introduction, I use my nearly 40 years of work in the area to reflect on the total medicalisation of pregnancy and childbirth that informs even the critical sociology that purports to examine the issue. The risks that are faced in pregnancy and birth are not only the inherent dangers that midwives have worked with across time and space but also those particular risks introduced by medicalisation itself. Medicalisation blinds us to those risks on the one hand, while it blinds us to the skills and knowledge that midwives and birthing women themselves have on the other. The women and midwives researched in these articles show us that in pregnancy and birth, as in most of life, it is not just a matter of ‘real risk’ versus ‘perceived risk’ as risk theorists (too) often describe it. There is rather an intelligent balancing of risks, weighing of risks and contextualising of risks. What we see in this issue is a glimpse into the ways in which people intelligently, creatively and determinedly balance risks.