Abstract
There are tensions inherent between many of the social exposures examined within social epidemiology and the assumptions embedded in quantitative potential-outcomes-based causal inference framework. The potential-outcomes framework characteristically requires a well-defined hypothetical intervention. As noted by Galea and Hernán (Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(3):167-170), for many social exposures, such well-defined hypothetical exposures do not exist or there is no consensus on what they might be. Nevertheless, the quantitative potential-outcomes framework can still be useful for the study of some of these social exposures by creative adaptations that 1) redefine the exposure, 2) separate the exposure from the hypothetical intervention, or 3) allow for a distribution of hypothetical interventions. These various approaches and adaptations are reviewed and discussed. However, even these approaches have their limits. For certain important historical and social determinants of health such as social movements or wars, the quantitative potential-outcomes framework with well-defined hypothetical interventions is the wrong tool. Other modes of inquiry are needed.