For decades, the @WHO has defined health as more than just the absence of disease. But epidemiologic research typically focuses on disease and risk factors, not health and health assets.

New paper, short thread. https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">

Take sexual health. Researchers and clinicians tend to focus on preventing unwanted outcomes, like STIs. But this picture of health is incomplete: people with STIs can have robust sexual health, while people who don’t have STIs can lack sexual well-being. 2/

PrEP research has centered on HIV, STIs, or "risky" sexual behavior, obscuring other ways that PrEP can affect health. New from me, @WhitneyCSewell, @khmayer1, and @douglaskrakower: we found that PrEP use was associated with greater sexual satisfaction. 3/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33657578/ ">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33657578/...

Pleasure is devalued in public health, esp in research on marginalized people. E.g.: Research on Black men& #39;s sexuality perpetuates narratives of disease and danger, while inequitable access to PrEP reinforces structural barriers to pleasure. @rikoamour 4/ https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305503">https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.21...

An exclusive focus on *avoidance of health risks* can overlook the *gain in health benefits* that may be a stronger motivator for some people. Acknowledging the full spectrum of health outcomes that matter to people can make research more relevant and messaging more effective. 5/

The @NIH is siloed by disease, and research funding is often tied to measurement of disease outcomes. But health assets—happiness, well-being, pleasure—are important outcomes in their own right, worth measuring and protecting for all people. 6/