JenniferSpartzAnnotation1BirthCohortStudy

Annotation 1 The Urban Environment and Childhood Asthma birth cohort study by James E. Gern //The Urban Environment and Childhood Asthma birth cohort study// was put together by a team of doctors that supervised various parts of the project in various parts of the country. All the doctors were located in prominent medical schools. Two of the listed doctors were also associated with the American Board of Allergy and Immunology. This validates the data found as the information is coming from a variety of reputable sources. However, this also may be seen as a negative since the team members writing this are all doctors who tend to only focus on the medical side of asthma. Fortunately, there was some participation of people with other occupations such as air quality experts and psychologists working under those running the tests. This study focused on low-income families living in urban areas. They first interviewed 2000 prenatal mothers to end up tracking 500 children and their households for 7 years after birth. It was stated that no studies of this type have been done in the U.S.; however, similar birth cohort studies have been successful in Europe. The data produced shows the types of tests distributed and when, as well as the statistics of family situations of the families studied (ethnicity, number of kids in household, mother’s education and tobacco use). It was found that most mothers were not married at the time of birth, only a few mothers had more than a high school education, and most families were considered to be low-income. It is important to note that the data found is not proportional to the national percentages of asthma risk factors. The percentages can only be applied to low-income, urban situations. “A number of environmental and lifestyle factors that are increased in the inner city are known to be injurious to lung health in early childhood.” This was essentially the whole point of the study, to observe high risk kids and monitor the health of their childhood. The fact that many of the children were in homes with tobacco smoke will not convince people that the study proved anything. It is common knowledge that smoke is an asthma inducer. When cigarette smoke is highly prominent, it makes sense for there to be high asthma rates. The fact that this also takes place entirely in the urban areas does not help discourage the idea that politics are involved in the study. The tests were set up to help encourage the idea that public health is important. By focusing mainly on the minorities, it seems as though the study is more about the image of caring than finding helpful results. The politics involved are a continued trend of appearing to look out for the public’s health. Other trends this follows are that kids are more vulnerable to sickness and other pollutants than adults are. By focusing on the newborns/kids they appear to be caring about the next generation, which can also be seen as political. There are also newer trends that present the idea that stress can aid in the development in these types of health problems. This helps the study because if people believe that stress is a large factor in asthma like symptoms, they may feel like there is more they can personally do to make their lives better. It would help them feel like they are more in control of the situation. As doctors are running the tests, they tend to feel that the study will give information that can help our understanding of asthma. Since it is doctors saying this, people are less likely to question their authority. This article helps us further our understanding of the group questions since the piece helps us to understand that doctors are trying to expand the ways they look at asthma. It may not help that many of their reasons are political; however they do question the causes of asthma which causes more people to start thinking of it as a serious problem. It also helps us understand that inner-city, low-income families are much worse off when it comes to asthma health care. Many of the people involved in the study were undereducated and did not have a good enough income to afford decent health care.