Name and define 5 of Hill’s criteria for causation.

What will be an ideal response?

Ans: Students should include 5 of the following bolded items (and their definitions) from Hill’s Criteria for Causation.
Strength of the association: The stronger the association, the less likely it is that the association is entirely due to sources of error; conversely, a weaker association does not necessarily mean that there is not a causal effect. Consistency of the findings: Consistent findings of the observed association by different persons in different places, circumstances, and times strengthens the likelihood of an effect.
Specificity of the association: Exposures associated with only one disease in one population with no other likely explanation support likelihood of causal effect. Temporality: The cause has to precede the occurrence of the effect. Biological gradient (dose response): Observation that frequency of disease increases with increasing frequency of exposure lends support to causality. Biologic plausibility of the hypothesis: Plausible mechanisms that make sense with current biological knowledge regarding observed association help support arguments for causality. Coherence of the evidence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. Experiment: Experimental evidence, when in existence, can be useful. Analogy: Findings regarding similar factors and diseases may be considered.