Statistics have been an integral part of the health care delivery system and the field of medical research for over a century now. Gathering and analyzing statistical data allows scientists and researchers to identify the existing issues and develop tools and approaches to address them. One of the most significant historical examples of the application of statistics that highly influenced the health care delivery system in the world was the work of Edwin Chadwick, a social reformer from England.
Chadwick’s most well-known reforms are connected to sanitary science and legislation that promoted it. One of his main works is the “Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Poor”, published in 1842 (Green et al., 2018). In this work, he provided evidence of the fact that social and spatial inequalities, as well as poor sanitary conditions, were highly associated with adverse health outcomes. At the time, Chadwick’s findings were considered controversial; however, they laid the foundation for the groundbreaking innovations in the field of health care. Some examples of statistics he used include scientific surveys and tables that identified different stages of complex social and health care problems. Another measure Chadwick used to analyze major medical and social issues and draw connections between them was the class-based average-age-at-death data.
Overall, Chadwick’s work has played a significant role in raising public awareness about the importance of high-quality sanitary conditions and hygiene. His reports and writings that used statistical data have allowed drawing the connection between poor sanitation and the spread of diseases. Although his recommendations were disregarded by the government on multiple occasions, causing the outbreak of cholera, his work was later acknowledged, making an important contribution to the development of the public health care system.
Reference
Green, M. A., Dorling, D., & Mitchell, R. (2018). Updating Edwin Chadwick’s seminal work on geographical inequalities by occupation. Social Science & Medicine, 197, 59-62.