I'm not involved in any epidemiological studies, simply a medical student :).
But that being said, I think a lot of the stigma comes from researchers using biased data, or acting unethically with their data. Good epidemiological studies exist that have improved the health of the general public.
As a guide for new readers of public health research, here are my suggestions:
1. Read the abstract. Think about the claims that are being made. For example, if someone tells me that drinking 2 cups of coffee a day leads to a lower risk of cancer, my first thought is: what kinds of things do people drinking 2 cups of coffee a day do that would lower their risk of cancer? Could they have a different diet? Do they make more money, leading to them being able to afford preventative health? Do coffee drinkers just have more awareness about their health? Do their regular schedules and sleep cycles give them a health advantage? Keep these questions in mind when reading the rest of the paper. See if the researchers tried to control for these easy alternative explanations.
2. Get a fundamental understanding of some of the statistical terms and calculations used, and make sure you are not misinterpreting them. Thinks like odds ratio, attributable risk, relative risk, etc. Each of them means something specific, and should not be used for extrapolation. Google is your friend!
3. Read the paper as completely as you can!
4. Especially look at the discussion section for maybe reasons that their data isn't great, or also discussing alternative explanations. Also look at their appendix for their exclusion criteria. This can be a clue towards whether or not a researcher is being genuine about their dataset or data collection. In the ACP article about coffee drinkers, there were quite a few exclusions made, and the population they pulled data from seemed biased (women who went to mammogram screenings might care a bit more about their health than the average person)
That's all I have for now. I'd welcome any actual researcher to provide feedback and suggestions!
But that being said, I think a lot of the stigma comes from researchers using biased data, or acting unethically with their data. Good epidemiological studies exist that have improved the health of the general public.
As a guide for new readers of public health research, here are my suggestions:
1. Read the abstract. Think about the claims that are being made. For example, if someone tells me that drinking 2 cups of coffee a day leads to a lower risk of cancer, my first thought is: what kinds of things do people drinking 2 cups of coffee a day do that would lower their risk of cancer? Could they have a different diet? Do they make more money, leading to them being able to afford preventative health? Do coffee drinkers just have more awareness about their health? Do their regular schedules and sleep cycles give them a health advantage? Keep these questions in mind when reading the rest of the paper. See if the researchers tried to control for these easy alternative explanations.
2. Get a fundamental understanding of some of the statistical terms and calculations used, and make sure you are not misinterpreting them. Thinks like odds ratio, attributable risk, relative risk, etc. Each of them means something specific, and should not be used for extrapolation. Google is your friend!
3. Read the paper as completely as you can!
4. Especially look at the discussion section for maybe reasons that their data isn't great, or also discussing alternative explanations. Also look at their appendix for their exclusion criteria. This can be a clue towards whether or not a researcher is being genuine about their dataset or data collection. In the ACP article about coffee drinkers, there were quite a few exclusions made, and the population they pulled data from seemed biased (women who went to mammogram screenings might care a bit more about their health than the average person)
That's all I have for now. I'd welcome any actual researcher to provide feedback and suggestions!