Population+Disparities+in+Asthma+Annotation+2

Michelle Cullum Asthmatic Spaces Annotation 2 Diane R. Gold Population Disparities in Asthma Written by two Harvard Medical School physicians, Dr. Diane R. Gold and Dr. Rosalind Wright, the population disparities study holds a great deal of merit and insight from two scientists with drastically different backgrounds. Gold’s research pertains to the biological links between environmental exposures and asthma and other respiratory diseases; whereas, Wright’s work focuses only on chronic respiratory diseases and their effects on the body. Together, they lend a great deal of knowledge and credibility to the study, with two alternate yet connected viewpoints. Unlike the previous birth cohort studies, numerous epidemiological studies on asthma have been conducted, and it was the work of these two doctors to gather and sort all of this data into a single study. Data from government agencies such as the CDC, U.S. National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Management and Diagnosis of Asthma, and, ISAA all contribute to the study. Furthermore, data from numerous countries has been gathered, showing a remarkable difference among the various locations. On the other hand, this work is similar to the last in that the two observe asthma different classes and socioeconomic backgrounds. A key issue with a broad spectrum epidemiological study such as this is the lack of concrete definition or list of important factors of asthma. This article in particular gives numerous examples and definitions of asthma: starting with the social and socioeconomic factors and contributors and quickly moving to immense list of causes. These causes range from pet allergens to pollution to mold and chemical exposure, a list that is both immense and often unrelated. Thus unyielding task of the specific asthma triggers is one that still cannot be fully understood or completed because of the various facets the disease holds. No two cases are identical. In fact, this was the first study to introduce regional differences to the list of asthma triggers. Following along these same lines, the numerous ways of data collection can be seen as a determent to the article. For example, using unrelated studies under the same broader study can lead to an over-abundance of data and thus less accurate measurements, all of which are independent of the others. Despite such a wide range of areas and means of testing, this study kept returning to lower income poverty stricken families as having higher asthma rates. Drawing from the previous article, the Gold research neglects to include stress as a factor of asthma. As was previously shown, this is a huge contributor to asthma and something that runs among nearly all lower class citizens. To me this shows that even with the numerous explained factors, there are always more to consider and those to be left out. In fact, the authors state that the traditional studies portray the factors that worsen asthma once someone is faced with the disease not was originally causes the respiratory distress. Finally, although the huge amount of data may seem unconnected, this article does a good job at creating links between the sets of numbers to paint a clearer picture of asthma throughout the U.S. Most importantly, this article shows that asthma is being studied in number of different levels, which in turn helps portray the vastness of this public health crisis. On the other hand, asthma must not merely be studies in low income areas but also rural and suburban areas as well.