1. Ouellette, Nadine, Magali Barbieri, and John R. Wilmoth. "Period‐Based Mortality Change: Turning Points in Trends since 1950." Population and development review 40, no. 1 (2014): 77-106.
The article did a great job of depicting various mortality changes in disease groups across periods and cohorts by country and gender. I was not completely surprised by their conclusion that cohort processes may be driving some of the smoking-related cancer mortality improvements. I do wonder how the increase of vaping and its preliminary findings of being associated with cigarette initiation in teens and young adults, but as a cessation alternative in adults in general (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3826), could possibly drive cohort and period based changes in mortality in the future (i.e., hypothesize a combination of both?).
2. Mackenbach et al. "Variations in the relation between education and cause-specific mortality in 19 European populations: A test of the “fundamental causes” theory of social inequalities in health" Social Science & Medicine 127 (2015) 51e62
I found the conceptual framework of the fundamental cause theory compelling and applicable to various areas of research. Specifically, fundamental cause theory suggests that individuals with higher SES can use their resources flexibly socio-economic resources to prevent adverse health outcomes and to protect against the direst consequences of poor health. These resources include money, assets, or other material resources as well as psychosocial resources. It is expected to see heterogeneous associations, and it would support the fundamental cause theory, since these differences may be driven in part by variation in the cultural, economic, and demographic landscapes. There may also be differences based on the features of national social policies and programs across global settings. Although they cite reverse causation as a limitation, prior quasi-experimental studies leveraging social policies and compulsory education laws have found an association on health outcomes, including those that may be less preventable (i.e., dementia).
This theory and the findings presented by Mackenbach et al. allude to the important need for cross-national studies since these comparisons can inform national policies that may indirectly contribute to lower mortality risk and better health outcomes by providing SES resources and mitigating SES disadvantage. I would be interested to see if in places where social programs (I.e, pensions) and other infrastructures are more robust, would the association of SES and mortality (or other health outcomes) be attenuated?