Morbidity and mortality during the health transition: a comment on James C. Riley, ‘Why sickness and death rates do not move parallel to one another over time’

Bernard Harris

    Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

    9 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Throughout most parts of the world, mortality rates have fallen dramatically since
    the mid-nineteenth century, but morbidity rates appear to have risen.1 James
    Riley's article is the latest in a series of attempts to explain this paradox. It breaks
    new ground, in relation to the author's previous work, in its use of a mathematical
    model to explain the relationship between morbidity and mortality, and in the
    deployment of new data from the Abthorpe, Ashboume, Llangeitho, and Morcott
    Friendly Societies.2 However, despite the undoubted importance of Riley's
    article, many of his conclusions remain open to question.
    In endeavouring to explain 'why sickness and death rates do not move parallel to
    one another over time', Riley raises four major issues, which may be summarized
    as follows:
    1. What is the practical significance of the equation P = / X D?
    2. To what extent has Riley succeeded in demonstrating the robustness of the
    friendly society data as objective indicators of health status?
    3. What do the data reveal about sickness and health among members of the four
    societies?
    4. What are the implications of Riley's findings for our understanding of the
    relationship between morbidity and mortality during the period of the 'health
    transition'?
    This comment will attempt to highlight the questions raised by Riley's article
    under each of these headings.
    What is the practical significance of the equation P= IX D?
    To what extent has Riley succeeded in demonstrating the robustness of the
    friendly society data as objective indicators of health status?
    What do the data reveal about sickness and health among members of the four
    Societies?
    What are the implications of Riley's findings for our understanding of the
    relationship between morbidity and mortality during the period of the 'health
    transition'?
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)125-131
    Number of pages7
    JournalSocial History of Medicine
    Volume12
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 1999

    Fingerprint

    sickness rate
    Health Transition
    death rate
    morbidity
    mortality
    Morbidity
    Mortality
    Health Status Indicators
    health
    health status
    illness
    Health
    nineteenth century
    time
    Sickness
    Death Rate

    Keywords

    • mortality
    • health transition
    • morbidity
    • sickness
    • death rates

    Cite this

    Harris, Bernard. / Morbidity and mortality during the health transition : a comment on James C. Riley, ‘Why sickness and death rates do not move parallel to one another over time’. In: Social History of Medicine. 1999 ; Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 125-131.
    @article{4ab3bbbb86f746a4be75eb4a83991437,
    title = "Morbidity and mortality during the health transition: a comment on James C. Riley, ‘Why sickness and death rates do not move parallel to one another over time’",
    abstract = "Throughout most parts of the world, mortality rates have fallen dramatically sincethe mid-nineteenth century, but morbidity rates appear to have risen.1 JamesRiley's article is the latest in a series of attempts to explain this paradox. It breaksnew ground, in relation to the author's previous work, in its use of a mathematicalmodel to explain the relationship between morbidity and mortality, and in thedeployment of new data from the Abthorpe, Ashboume, Llangeitho, and MorcottFriendly Societies.2 However, despite the undoubted importance of Riley'sarticle, many of his conclusions remain open to question.In endeavouring to explain 'why sickness and death rates do not move parallel toone another over time', Riley raises four major issues, which may be summarizedas follows:1. What is the practical significance of the equation P = / X D?2. To what extent has Riley succeeded in demonstrating the robustness of thefriendly society data as objective indicators of health status?3. What do the data reveal about sickness and health among members of the foursocieties?4. What are the implications of Riley's findings for our understanding of therelationship between morbidity and mortality during the period of the 'healthtransition'?This comment will attempt to highlight the questions raised by Riley's articleunder each of these headings.What is the practical significance of the equation P= IX D?To what extent has Riley succeeded in demonstrating the robustness of thefriendly society data as objective indicators of health status?What do the data reveal about sickness and health among members of the fourSocieties?What are the implications of Riley's findings for our understanding of therelationship between morbidity and mortality during the period of the 'healthtransition'?",
    keywords = "mortality, health transition, morbidity, sickness, death rates",
    author = "Bernard Harris",
    year = "1999",
    language = "English",
    volume = "12",
    pages = "125--131",
    journal = "Social History of Medicine",
    issn = "0951-631X",
    number = "1",

    }

    Harris, B 1999, 'Morbidity and mortality during the health transition: a comment on James C. Riley, ‘Why sickness and death rates do not move parallel to one another over time’', Social History of Medicine, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 125-131.

    Morbidity and mortality during the health transition : a comment on James C. Riley, ‘Why sickness and death rates do not move parallel to one another over time’. / Harris, Bernard.

    In: Social History of Medicine, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1999, p. 125-131.

    Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Morbidity and mortality during the health transition

    T2 - a comment on James C. Riley, ‘Why sickness and death rates do not move parallel to one another over time’

    AU - Harris, Bernard

    PY - 1999

    Y1 - 1999

    N2 - Throughout most parts of the world, mortality rates have fallen dramatically sincethe mid-nineteenth century, but morbidity rates appear to have risen.1 JamesRiley's article is the latest in a series of attempts to explain this paradox. It breaksnew ground, in relation to the author's previous work, in its use of a mathematicalmodel to explain the relationship between morbidity and mortality, and in thedeployment of new data from the Abthorpe, Ashboume, Llangeitho, and MorcottFriendly Societies.2 However, despite the undoubted importance of Riley'sarticle, many of his conclusions remain open to question.In endeavouring to explain 'why sickness and death rates do not move parallel toone another over time', Riley raises four major issues, which may be summarizedas follows:1. What is the practical significance of the equation P = / X D?2. To what extent has Riley succeeded in demonstrating the robustness of thefriendly society data as objective indicators of health status?3. What do the data reveal about sickness and health among members of the foursocieties?4. What are the implications of Riley's findings for our understanding of therelationship between morbidity and mortality during the period of the 'healthtransition'?This comment will attempt to highlight the questions raised by Riley's articleunder each of these headings.What is the practical significance of the equation P= IX D?To what extent has Riley succeeded in demonstrating the robustness of thefriendly society data as objective indicators of health status?What do the data reveal about sickness and health among members of the fourSocieties?What are the implications of Riley's findings for our understanding of therelationship between morbidity and mortality during the period of the 'healthtransition'?

    AB - Throughout most parts of the world, mortality rates have fallen dramatically sincethe mid-nineteenth century, but morbidity rates appear to have risen.1 JamesRiley's article is the latest in a series of attempts to explain this paradox. It breaksnew ground, in relation to the author's previous work, in its use of a mathematicalmodel to explain the relationship between morbidity and mortality, and in thedeployment of new data from the Abthorpe, Ashboume, Llangeitho, and MorcottFriendly Societies.2 However, despite the undoubted importance of Riley'sarticle, many of his conclusions remain open to question.In endeavouring to explain 'why sickness and death rates do not move parallel toone another over time', Riley raises four major issues, which may be summarizedas follows:1. What is the practical significance of the equation P = / X D?2. To what extent has Riley succeeded in demonstrating the robustness of thefriendly society data as objective indicators of health status?3. What do the data reveal about sickness and health among members of the foursocieties?4. What are the implications of Riley's findings for our understanding of therelationship between morbidity and mortality during the period of the 'healthtransition'?This comment will attempt to highlight the questions raised by Riley's articleunder each of these headings.What is the practical significance of the equation P= IX D?To what extent has Riley succeeded in demonstrating the robustness of thefriendly society data as objective indicators of health status?What do the data reveal about sickness and health among members of the fourSocieties?What are the implications of Riley's findings for our understanding of therelationship between morbidity and mortality during the period of the 'healthtransition'?

    KW - mortality

    KW - health transition

    KW - morbidity

    KW - sickness

    KW - death rates

    UR - http://10.1093/shm/12.1.125

    M3 - Article

    VL - 12

    SP - 125

    EP - 131

    JO - Social History of Medicine

    JF - Social History of Medicine

    SN - 0951-631X

    IS - 1

    ER -

    Harris B. Morbidity and mortality during the health transition: a comment on James C. Riley, ‘Why sickness and death rates do not move parallel to one another over time’. Social History of Medicine. 1999;12(1):125-131.

    Access to Document