This article needs attention from an expert in medicine. The specific problem is: defining, "determinant," a complicated, poorly harmonized concept in medicine. Some sources use the term loosely while others use it as a technical term..WikiProject Medicine may be able to help recruit an expert.(July 2019)
Due to a lack of harmonization across disciplines, determinant, in its more widely accepted scientific meaning, is often used as a synonym. The main difference lies in the realm of practice: medicine (clinical practice) versus public health. As an example from clinical practice, low ingestion of dietary sources of vitamin C is a known risk factor for developing scurvy. Specific to public health policy, a determinant is a health risk that is general, abstract, related to inequalities, and difficult for an individual to control.[2][3][4] For example, poverty is known to be a determinant of an individual's standard of health.
Risk factors or determinants are correlational and not necessarily causal, because correlation does not prove causation. For example, being young cannot be said to cause measles, but young people have a higher rate of measles because they are less likely to have developed immunity during a previous epidemic. Statistical methods are frequently used to assess the strength of an association and to provide causal evidence, for example in the study of the link between smoking and lung cancer. Statistical analysis along with the biological sciences can establish that risk factors are causal. Some prefer the term risk factor to mean causal determinants of increased rates of disease, and for unproven links to be called possible risks, associations, etc.[citation needed]
When done thoughtfully and based on research, identification of risk factors can be a strategy for medical screening.[5]
Relative risk, such as "A woman is more than 100 times more likely to develop breast cancer in her 60s than in her 20s."[6]
Fraction of incidences occurring in the group having the property of or being exposed to the risk factor, such as "99% of breast cancer cases are diagnosed in women."[7]
Increase in incidence in the exposed group, such as "each daily alcoholic beverage increases the incidence of breast cancer by 11 cases per 1000 women."[8]
Hazard ratio, such as "an increase in both total and invasive breast cancers in women randomized to receive estrogen and progestin for an average of 5 years, with a hazard ratio of 1.24 compared to controls."[9]
At a wedding, 74 people ate the chicken and 22 of them were ill, while of the 35 people who had the fish or vegetarian meal only 2 were ill. Did the chicken make the people ill?
So the chicken eaters' risk = 22/74 = 0.297
And non-chicken eaters' risk = 2/35 = 0.057.
Those who ate the chicken had a risk over five times as high as those who did not, that is, a relative risk of more than five. This suggests that eating chicken was the cause of the illness, but this is not proof.
This example of a risk factor is described in terms of the relative risk it confers, which is evaluated by comparing the risk of those exposed to the potential risk factor to those not exposed.
The probability of an outcome usually depends on an interplay between multiple associated variables. When performing epidemiological studies to evaluate one or more determinants for a specific outcome, the other determinants may act as confounding factors, and need to be controlled for, e.g. by stratification. The potentially confounding determinants varies with what outcome is studied, but the following general confounders are common to most epidemiological associations, and are the determinants most commonly controlled for in epidemiological studies:[citation needed]
Age (0 to 1.5 years for infants, 1.5 to 6 years for young children, etc.)
Arisk marker is a variable that is quantitatively associated with a disease or other outcome, but direct alteration of the risk marker does not necessarily alter the risk of the outcome. For example, driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) history is a risk marker for pilots as epidemiologic studies indicate that pilots with a DWI history are significantly more likely than their counterparts without a DWI history to be involved in aviation crashes.[13]
^ abParritz, Robin Hornik (2017-05-24). Disorders of childhood : development and psychopathology. Troy, Michael F. (Michael Francis) (Third ed.). Boston, MA. ISBN9781337098113. OCLC960031712.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Improving Health in the Community: A Role for Performance Monitoring: 2. Understanding Health and Its Determinants: A Model of the Determinants of Health. National Academy of Sciences: National Academies Press: Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Using Performance Monitoring to Improve Community Health. 1997. ISBN978-0309055345. Unlike a biomedical model that views health as the absence of disease, this dynamic framework includes functional capacity and well-being as health outcomes of interest. It also presents the behavioral and biologic responses of individuals as factors that influence health but are themselves influenced by social, physical, and genetic factors that are beyond the control of the individual.
^Margolese RG, Fisher B, Hortobagyi GN, Bloomer WD (2000). "Neoplasms of the Breast". In Bast RC, Kufe DW, Pollock RE, et al. (eds.). Cancer Medicine (5th ed.). Hamilton, Ontario: B. C. Decker. §Risk Factors. ISBN1-55009-113-1. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
^Li G., Baker S. P., Qiang Y., Grabowski J. G., McCarthy M. L. Driving-while-intoxicated history as a risk marker for general aviation pilots. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37(1):179-84./McFadden K. L. Driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions and job-related flying performance – a study of commercial air safety. J Oper Res Soc. 1998;49:28–32
[10]
