The practical irrelevance of distinguishing between public health and population health

Abstract

Recently Idrovo AJ editorialized on an ongoing debate about the differentiation between public health and population health1 , regarding environmental health determinants. While he argued for the distinctiveness of these terms, or at least, of those points of view, it can be contended that from a practical standpoint, such distinctions are not needed. As has been reported before, several authors have declared population health as a relatively new term, with no agreement as to whether it refers to a concept of health or a field of study of health determinants and promoting the debate, sometimes heated, about whether population health and public health are identical or different2. This response to the editor aims to highlight the practical irrelevance of differentiating between public health and population health, emphasizing their shared goals, methodologies, and outcomes.Considering the goals, public health and population health share a fundamental objective: to enhance the health and well-being of communities and populations. The overarching aim is to prevent disease, prolong life, and promote health through various interventions, including policy3 . Both disciplines prioritize the assessment of health needs, the development of strategies for intervention, and the evaluation of health outcomes at the community or population level. As such, differentiating between the two becomes redundant when considering their core mission. However, some authors have emphasized about population health in terms of health determination specifically, about how system-level variables influence the health of populations4.