Kirrilly Thompson
Tambri Housen
Joanne Talwar- 1College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- 2School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan NSW, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
- 3National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University Acton, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Editorial on the Research Topic
Social science contributions to public health
Background
Epidemiological studies and medical interventions are essential for understanding and addressing public health issues. However, as conveyed by former Director of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Bill Foege, “public health is at its best when we see and help others see the faces and the lives behind the numbers” (1). In the social sciences, qualitative research methods are commonly used to gain first-hand insight into human experience, behavior, decision-making and meaning-making. This “insider” knowledge makes it possible to develop strategies and policies that are contextually relevant, responsive to community needs, and inclusive of marginalized populations. There are many examples of qualitative research methods being used to generate evidence to support public health policy decisions, evaluate program effectiveness, and guide resource allocation to promote health equity (2). For this Research Topic, we called for articles demonstrating the ability of social science and qualitative methods to provide an understanding of the complex social dynamics and lived experiences that shape health outcomes.
Contributions
The six contributions to this Research Topic illustrate the ways in which qualitative social science can be used to understand and therefore address the broad social, cultural, political, religious and/or historical dimensions of a range of public health topics. For instance, Frampton et al. discuss vaccine hesitancy in South Africa to emphasize the importance of “socio-theological influences on engagements with public health interventions” (page 2). Their overview highlights the impact of colonialism and apartheid on responses to public health interventions originating from European and North American research.
Carter et al. describe two case studies where social and behavioral sciences have played an important role in addressing complex public health issues; the global COVID-19 pandemic and the 2021 New South Wales mouse plague in Australia. The integration of qualitative social science methods into public health research is also illustrated by Willemsen et al., who used a mixed methods approach to consider infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in small animal veterinary practices in Australia. The contribution from White et al. outlines the key features of five case studies undertaken by one Local Health District in New South Wales. Each case study illustrates not only how qualitative social science methods and approaches were employed, but how research findings were utilized to inform public health policy at local and national levels. Indeed, the public health gains for managing zoonotic diseases and pandemics can be attributed to effective engagement with qualitative social science.
Together, contributions highlight not only the value of qualitative social science to public health, but the importance of collaboration across disciplines and sectors. This is particularly evident in relation to One Health, which supports a comprehensive public health agenda by highlighting the interdependency of human, animal and environmental health (3, 4). The One Health approach is therefore fundamentally multidisciplinary, uniting specialists within and between academia, government, organizations and communities. Social scientists typically contribute to multidisciplinary One Health research teams by helping understand and influence human behavior and decision making, amongst other things (5). To more fully (and critically) approach One Health as a complex system, Carter et al. highlight the need to include scholars from the humanities as well as the social sciences. They point to ethicists, historians, philosophers, educators and legal scholars who may not be involved in primary data collection but can provide essential insight to the public health impact of policy, governance and institutions.
In Table 1 of their contribution, Carter et al., outline seven contemporary One Health priorities and list relevant examples of capabilities of the social and behavioral sciences and humanities. These contributions can address the broader socio-cultural, historical and political dimensions of One Health issues whilst also facilitating a critical analysis of the production of One Health knowledge and the operation of One Health systems. Their identification of the benefits of involving the full range of the social and behavioral sciences and humanities in One Health is a reminder that social science contributions to public health similarly benefit from collaboration with the humanities. Additionally, Frampton et al. recommend also involving media and communications experts in public health collaborations, specifically regarding pandemics. Levites Strekalova et al. examine the utilization of two U.S. policy tools to highlight the importance of involving experts in health services, management, and policy. The extensive multidisciplinary and multisectoral collaborations described throughout this Research Topic are important not only to respond to major public health events like pandemics, but to reduce risk and build community preparedness.
Nonetheless, high quality and impactful public health outcomes are not inevitable results of multidisciplinary collaborations. In their contribution to this Research Topic, Meyer et al. utilize a qualitative social science approach to understand the experiences of senior-level health promotion researchers involved in a global urban health promotion initiative spanning five cities of low- and middle-income countries. They identify potential points of tension when experts collaborate to resolve complex health promotion issues. Their research suggests that successful collaboration requires clarity, support and guidance.
Whilst “scientific” solutions like medicines and vaccines can make a significant positive impact on public health issues, they are often publicly resisted. The conditions for the acceptance and rejection of medical public health interventions are at least as important as their effectiveness. One of the benefits of involving social scientists in public health and medicine is to continue to challenge the idealistic belief that scientific knowledge should be sufficient for humans to make healthy decisions. For example, in relation to vaccination hesitancy, Frampton et al. eloquently explain:
Those who refuse vaccines can be labeled as simply scientifically “ill-informed.” But most of those who accept vaccines are also largely uninformed about the intricacies of vaccine science, and those who decline or question vaccines can be quite knowledgeable about them. Assuming a lack of understanding as the root cause of vaccine hesitancy fails to do justice to the complexity of human approaches to—and decision-making about—health and our bodies'.
Final remarks
Whilst most positivistic and experimental scientists are only too aware of the fact that education alone is insufficient to influence behavior, they are often frustrated by an apparent lack of public trust and rational decision making. The social sciences and humanities are uniquely positioned to use qualitative research methods to not only explain how “resistance” makes sense to individuals, but provide insight into how to influence behaviors, attitudes and beliefs that undermine public health outcomes. However, the social sciences and especially the humanities are often considered inferior to medical science and experimental approaches (6)—hence the feasibility of this Research Topic despite a long history of social science research within public health. Until the social sciences and humanities are treated with as much prestige as other sciences and receive resourcing accordingly, developments from the “hard sciences” will fail to meet their full potential for improving public health. We hope that this Research Topic helps not only to illustrate the contributions to public health from social science, qualitative research and the humanities but to normalize their engagement in public health research, practice and extension.
Author contributions
KT: Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TH: Project administration, Writing – review & editing. JT: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Traditional Owners and their custodianship of the lands on which this work was conducted. We pay our respects to their Ancestors and their Descendants, and recognize their valuable contributions to Australian and global society. We also thank all the authors and reviewers who have contributed to this Research Topic.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. McClelland A, Frieden TR. Understanding, preventing, and stopping epidemics. Lancet. (2018) 391:2489–90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31112-6
2. Verboom B, Baumann A. Mapping the qualitative evidence base on the use of research evidence in health policy-making: a systematic review. Int J Health Policy Manag. (2022) 11:883–98. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.201
3. Adisasmito WB, Almuhairi S, Behravesh CB, Bilivogui P, Bukachi SA, Casas N, et al. One Health: a new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. PLoS Pathog. (2022) 18:e1010537. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010537
4. Mackenzie JS, Jeggo M. The One Health approach—why is it so important? Trop Med Infect Dis. (2019) 4:88. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed4020088
5. Lapinski MK, Funk JA, Moccia LT. Recommendations for the role of social science research in One Health. Soc Sci Med. (2015) 129:51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.048
Keywords: social science and humanities, qualitative social science, One Health, human behavior, behavior change, public understanding of science, collaboration, public health
Citation: Thompson K, Housen T and Talwar J (2025) Editorial: Social science contributions to public health. Front. Public Health 13:1680022. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1680022
Received: 05 August 2025; Accepted: 18 August 2025;
Published: 08 September 2025.
Edited and reviewed by: Christiane Stock, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Copyright © 2025 Thompson, Housen and Talwar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kirrilly Thompson, a2lycmlsbHkudGhvbXBzb25AZmxpbmRlcnMuZWR1LmF1