Under examination

Since the 1990s, multilevel models have become popular tools for looking at contextual effects upon health. However, the way that geography is incorporated into these models has received criticism due to somewhat arbitrary definitions of what counts as context, the models’ discrete and, arguably, as...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Progress in human geography 2016-06, Vol.40 (3), p.394-412
Main Authors: Owen Gwilym, Harris, Richard, Jones, Kelvyn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Contextual effects
Geography
Health problems
Human geography
Specification
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758-3136511a3294cc63aacd234ad69ac68eae516a8add824e05518964577d74a38c3
cites
container_end_page 412
container_issue 3
container_start_page 394
container_title Progress in human geography
container_volume 40
creator Owen Gwilym
Harris, Richard
Jones, Kelvyn
description Since the 1990s, multilevel models have become popular tools for looking at contextual effects upon health. However, the way that geography is incorporated into these models has received criticism due to somewhat arbitrary definitions of what counts as context, the models’ discrete and, arguably, aspatial view of geographical effects, and the lack of any clear theoretical specification of the processes involved. This review draws together and extends these criticisms, arguing that while currently there are problems with how geography is conceived within multilevel models, there are ways of addressing them, and indeed that it is important to do so.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0309132515580814
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2206462388</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2206462388</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758-3136511a3294cc63aacd234ad69ac68eae516a8add824e05518964577d74a38c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjbFKA0EQQIegkDNapLMUrFdndnZ250oJGoWATazDsLtCQrzTuwT8fA1aveLBewDXhHdEKd0jY0vshUQUlcIEGgopOfSqZ9CctDv5KVyM4w4RJXlpYP7WlTrc1G_72HZ22PbdJZy_236sV_-cwfrpcb14dqvX5cviYeVyEnVMHIXI2Lch58hmuXgOVmJrOWq1KhRNrRT1oaIIaRuDpFRSMNbMM7j9y34O_dexjofNrj8O3e9x4z3GED2r8g--KTi1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2206462388</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Under examination</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>SAGE</source><creator>Owen Gwilym ; Harris, Richard ; Jones, Kelvyn</creator><creatorcontrib>Owen Gwilym ; Harris, Richard ; Jones, Kelvyn</creatorcontrib><description>Since the 1990s, multilevel models have become popular tools for looking at contextual effects upon health. However, the way that geography is incorporated into these models has received criticism due to somewhat arbitrary definitions of what counts as context, the models’ discrete and, arguably, aspatial view of geographical effects, and the lack of any clear theoretical specification of the processes involved. This review draws together and extends these criticisms, arguing that while currently there are problems with how geography is conceived within multilevel models, there are ways of addressing them, and indeed that it is important to do so.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0309-1325</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-0288</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0309132515580814</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Sage Publications Ltd</publisher><subject>Contextual effects ; Geography ; Health problems ; Human geography ; Specification</subject><ispartof>Progress in human geography, 2016-06, Vol.40 (3), p.394-412</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758-3136511a3294cc63aacd234ad69ac68eae516a8add824e05518964577d74a38c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,33223,33774</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Owen Gwilym</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Kelvyn</creatorcontrib><title>Under examination</title><title>Progress in human geography</title><description>Since the 1990s, multilevel models have become popular tools for looking at contextual effects upon health. However, the way that geography is incorporated into these models has received criticism due to somewhat arbitrary definitions of what counts as context, the models’ discrete and, arguably, aspatial view of geographical effects, and the lack of any clear theoretical specification of the processes involved. This review draws together and extends these criticisms, arguing that while currently there are problems with how geography is conceived within multilevel models, there are ways of addressing them, and indeed that it is important to do so.</description><subject>Contextual effects</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Health problems</subject><subject>Human geography</subject><subject>Specification</subject><issn>0309-1325</issn><issn>1477-0288</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNotjbFKA0EQQIegkDNapLMUrFdndnZ250oJGoWATazDsLtCQrzTuwT8fA1aveLBewDXhHdEKd0jY0vshUQUlcIEGgopOfSqZ9CctDv5KVyM4w4RJXlpYP7WlTrc1G_72HZ22PbdJZy_236sV_-cwfrpcb14dqvX5cviYeVyEnVMHIXI2Lch58hmuXgOVmJrOWq1KhRNrRT1oaIIaRuDpFRSMNbMM7j9y34O_dexjofNrj8O3e9x4z3GED2r8g--KTi1</recordid><startdate>20160601</startdate><enddate>20160601</enddate><creator>Owen Gwilym</creator><creator>Harris, Richard</creator><creator>Jones, Kelvyn</creator><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160601</creationdate><title>Under examination</title><author>Owen Gwilym ; Harris, Richard ; Jones, Kelvyn</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758-3136511a3294cc63aacd234ad69ac68eae516a8add824e05518964577d74a38c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Contextual effects</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Health problems</topic><topic>Human geography</topic><topic>Specification</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Owen Gwilym</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harris, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Kelvyn</creatorcontrib><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Progress in human geography</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Owen Gwilym</au><au>Harris, Richard</au><au>Jones, Kelvyn</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Under examination</atitle><jtitle>Progress in human geography</jtitle><date>2016-06-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>394</spage><epage>412</epage><pages>394-412</pages><issn>0309-1325</issn><eissn>1477-0288</eissn><abstract>Since the 1990s, multilevel models have become popular tools for looking at contextual effects upon health. However, the way that geography is incorporated into these models has received criticism due to somewhat arbitrary definitions of what counts as context, the models’ discrete and, arguably, aspatial view of geographical effects, and the lack of any clear theoretical specification of the processes involved. This review draws together and extends these criticisms, arguing that while currently there are problems with how geography is conceived within multilevel models, there are ways of addressing them, and indeed that it is important to do so.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Sage Publications Ltd</pub><doi>10.1177/0309132515580814</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0309-1325
ispartof Progress in human geography, 2016-06, Vol.40 (3), p.394-412
issn 0309-1325
1477-0288
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2206462388
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Sociological Abstracts; SAGE
subjects Contextual effects
Geography
Health problems
Human geography
Specification
title Under examination
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T16%3A40%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Under%20examination&rft.jtitle=Progress%20in%20human%20geography&rft.au=Owen%20Gwilym&rft.date=2016-06-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=394&rft.epage=412&rft.pages=394-412&rft.issn=0309-1325&rft.eissn=1477-0288&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0309132515580814&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2206462388%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758-3136511a3294cc63aacd234ad69ac68eae516a8add824e05518964577d74a38c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2206462388&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true