Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality or causation is a fundamental concept in epidemiology, vital for understanding the relationships between various factors and health outcomes. Despite its importance, there's no single, universally accepted definition of causality within the discipline. Drawing from a systematic review, causality in epidemiology encompasses several definitions, including production, necessary and sufficient, sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic models. Each has its strengths and...

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

The Bradford Hill criteria are a group of principles that provide a framework to determine a causal relationship between a specific factor and a disease. There are nine criteria that are pivotal in assessing causality in epidemiological studies. Here's a closer look at Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality criteria with definitions and examples:

Cause and Effect

Cause and Effect

While variables are sometimes correlated because one does cause the other, it could also be that some other factor, a confounding variable, is actually causing the systematic movement in our variables of interest. For instance, as sales in ice cream increase, so does the overall rate of crime. Is it possible that indulging in your favorite flavor of ice cream could send you on a crime spree? Or, after committing crime do you think you might decide to treat yourself to a cone?

Correlation and Causation

Correlation and Causation

Correlation and CausationStatistical tests can calculate whether there is a relationship, or correlation, between independent and dependent variables. A relationship between variables shows correlation, but it does not show cause-and-effect. A direct cause-and-effect relationship requires additional controlled experiments. If no consistent relationship exists between the variables, then there is no correlation.Correlation versus CausationIf the dependent variable increases or decreases when the...

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Interdisciplinary perspectives on the flow of time.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences·2014

Same author

A simple guide to chaos and complexity.

Journal of epidemiology and community health·2007

Same journal

The moral significance of moral distress.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2026

Same journal

A defense of empathy: Edith Stein, nursing, and prisoner/patients.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2026

Same journal

Should we be testing pregnant patients' urine for drugs? An applied ethics approach.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2026

Same journal

Taking the Right to Die Seriously.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2026

Same journal

Improving bioethics by clarifying and elaborating its methodology: a response to Gomez-Virseda and colleagues.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2026

Same journal

Bioethics as bios ethikos.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 5, 2026

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Published on: April 18, 2017

Causality in complex interventions.

¹Unit for History & Philosophy of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. d.rickles@usyd.edu.au

Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy

|May 10, 2008

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Evaluating causal hypotheses through interventions faces challenges in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Complex interventions in intricate systems exacerbate these issues, necessitating a new approach to causal inference.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 5, 2026

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Task Interruption and Resumption Paradigm for Testing the Activation and Pursuit of an Abstract Thinking Goal

Published on: April 18, 2017

Area of Science:

Intervention research
Causal inference
Complex systems analysis

Background:

Evaluating causal hypotheses through interventions is crucial in research.
Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies present challenges in causal evaluation.
Complex interventions, particularly those in complex systems, intensify these evaluation difficulties.

Purpose of the Study:

To examine causality within intervention research.
To identify and discuss problems in evaluating causal hypotheses via interventions.
To propose a reframing of causal inference for complex interventions.

Main Methods:

Analysis of causal inference in intervention research.
Critique of randomized controlled trials for complex interventions.
Evaluation of observational studies for complex interventions.
Consideration and rejection of simulation as a resolution.

Main Results:

Randomized controlled trials face simple, yet significant, problems in causal evaluation.
Observational studies encounter similar, and often more acute, problems.
The complexity of interventions within complex systems significantly amplifies these challenges.
Simulation is deemed an inadequate resolution for causal inference in complex interventions.

Conclusions:

Current methods for causal inference in intervention research are insufficient for complex interventions.
A radical reframing of causal inference is required for complex intervention research.
The limitations highlight the need for innovative methodologies to understand cause-and-effect in intricate systems.