The traditional “medical geography” has been replaced in discussions in the field of geography by “health geography.” Neither describe the field adequately. To me, the importance of medical geography is one of perspective and of methodology: a view of health and disease from the perspective of spatial patterns, and of human-environment relationships. “Medical” refers more to diagnosis and treatment. “Health geography” connotes, to me, a de-emphasis of disease, while most research in epidemiology and related areas deals with disease. “Disease geography” de-emphasizes health. So “epidemiologic geography”? “Geography of health and disease”? Please leave suggestions or comments.
Lewis on US Mortality Rate at Historic… Elisabeth Root on Medical geography: a better na… Jim on H5N7: A problem in the ma… epihealth on H5N7: A problem in the ma… Jim on H5N7: A problem in the ma…
- clinical research
- emerging infectious diseases
- End of life
- Globalization and infectious disease
- goals of medicine
- higher education
- medical and health geography
- medical ethics
- patient outcome
- Patient-physician relationship
- personal accounts
- public health
I am actually a fan of your suggestion in the Companion to Health & Medical Geog of “public health geography”.