What does it take to shift a public health narrative and are researchers ready when the moment comes?

Whitney and Salma start their conversation discussing Whitney’s move from obesity to gynecologic research, highlighting how gynecologic conditions and overall women’s midlife health are understudied, as well as how obesity narratives remain focused on the individual willpower, despite a strong body of evidence pointing to environmental and structural causes. Then, they delve into Whitney’s experience as a social epidemiologist embedded in a clinical environment, discuss the tensions between quantitative work and advocacy in social epidemiology, and highlight the dangers of academics making assumptions about communities without talking to them.

Reflecting on the Covid-19 pandemic, Whitney and Salma also analyze how the pandemic pushed researchers toward more public-facing communication and look at the role of narrative and political moments in shifting public health paradigms, the importance of being ready when those windows of opportunity open, and the need for academics to engage with political stakeholders as a long-term investment.

This conversation will challenge you to think about who public health researchers are actually talking to and who they should be aiming to reach.

About the guest:

Whitney R Robinson is Associate Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Duke University School of Medicine, Member of the Duke Cancer Institute, and Core Faculty Member of the Duke-Margolis Institute for Health Policy. Her research currently focuses on understanding why rates of disease for non-cancerous gynecologic conditions like endometriosis, fibroids, and PCOS vary across population groups. Previously, her research had focused on disparities for obesity.

Notes:

Acronyms mentioned in this episode include:

• HIV = Human Immunodeficiency Virus

• NIH = National Institutes of Health

• RCT = Randomized Controlled Trial

• MAHA = Make America Healthy Again

• AI = Artificial Intelligence

• SER = Society for Epidemiological Research

• OBGYN = Obstetrics and Gynecology

Host: Dr. Salma Abdalla

Editors: Catalina Melendez Contreras

Marketing: Kinkini Bhaduri

Music: Eden Avery / Melting Glass from Epidemic Sound https://www.epidemicsound.com/track/2fqOXWpHab/

The views and opinions expressed by the guest in this episode do not necessarily reflect those of their institution, the funders, or the podcast team.

Katherine Keyes joins Salma to discuss the strengths and limitations of epidemiology, beginning with the gap between what averages tell us about populations and what they fail to predict about individuals. They explore how that gap is a frequent source of public misunderstanding, how self-experimentation can mislead through placebo effects and confounding, and why public health needs to be more transparent and humble about the strengths and limitations of its evidence base. As Katherine and Salma argue, the public can handle nuance when it is communicated honestly.

They then turn to what makes a research question worth asking, arguing that good questions should aim probe where existing theories produce anomalies in addition to expanding the existing evidence base, and that the questions any of us can ask are shaped by the "thought collectives" we operate within. Drawing on Katherine's work in psychiatric epidemiology, they discuss why rising mental health trends are likely multifactorial, before closing on the importance of engaging communities and carrying knowledge beyond traditional academic environments.

This episode invites you to look beyond the data, to understand the context in which it was produced, recognize its limits, and consider what it means to communicate those limits honestly to the public.

About the guest:

Dr. Katherine Keyes is the Susan Lasker Brody Professor of Population Mental Health and Vice Chair for Research at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. Her research focuses on psychiatric and substance use epidemiology across the life course, with a particular interest in methodological challenges and in outcomes such as suicide and overdose.

Notes:

Acronyms mentioned in this episode include:

• DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
• GLP-1 = Glucagon-Like Peptide-1
• RCT = Randomized Controlled Trial

Useful resources:

• Keyes KM. What Makes Something Worth Knowing? Epistemology and Public Health Impact. Epidemiology. 2026;37(3):371-373. doi:1097/EDE.0000000000001957

Host: Dr. Salma Abdalla

Editors: Catalina Melendez Contreras

Marketing: Kinkini Bhaduri

Music: Eden Avery / Melting Glass from Epidemic Sound https://www.epidemicsound.com/track/2fqOXWpHab/

The views and opinions expressed by the guest in this episode do not necessarily reflect those of their institution, the funders, or the podcast team.

How can you engage in healthy and fruitful conversation with people who think differently?

Brinda Adhikari joins Salma to discuss the importance of healthy disagreement and unpack how conversations between people who think differently can look like. Reflecting on Brinda’s experience in journalism and especially as co-host of “Why Should I Trust You?”—bringing together public health experts, physicians, and people deeply skeptical of both—they discuss the tools to set up and facilitate a hard conversation and the importance of engaging in these conversations to understand others’ points of view rather than to persuading them to change their positions. They also touch on some of the challenges that arise when facilitating these conversations and highlight why connection is a better measure of success. As Brinda points out, hard conversations should be treated as dinner parties, where debates can get rowdy, but people end the night wanting to meet again.

In a time of increasing mistrust and intolerance, this conversation will invite you to explore how to engage and connect across differences.

About the guest:

Brinda Adhikari is Co-Host, Co-Creator and Executive Producer of the top ranked “Why Should I Trust You?” podcast, which explores the erosion of trust in science and public health. She has over 25 years of experience in impactful storytelling and leadership across the streaming, digital, podcast and broadcast space, as a leader, producer, reporter, and a strategist.

Notes:

Acronyms mentioned in this conversation include:

• MAHA — Make America Healthy Again
• NIH — National Institutes of Health
• APHA — American Public Health Association
• AI — Artificial Intelligence

Useful resources:

• Why Should I Trust You (podcast):
  • Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-should-i-trust-you/id1788335471
  • Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ZvjT4Ls8Q54whJXCrdpjD?si=7a9f1d6ce57a4a82
  • YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@whyshoulditrustyou
• Edelman Trust Institute. 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report Trust and Health. 2026. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2026-04/2026%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Special%20Report%20Trust%20and%20Health_Final.pdf
• O’Brian NA, Kent TB. Partisanship and Trust in Personal Doctors: Causes and Consequences. Brit J Polit Sci. 2025;55:e34. doi:1017/S0007123424000607

Host: Dr. Salma Abdalla

Editors: Catalina Melendez Contreras

Marketing: Kinkini Bhaduri

Music: Eden Avery / Melting Glass from Epidemic Sound https://www.epidemicsound.com/track/2fqOXWpHab/

The views and opinions expressed by the guest in this episode do not necessarily reflect those of their institution, the funders, or the podcast team.