Don’t bank on the rank

October 30, 2009

The United States ranks 37th in the world in health care, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Google the key words, and you find 3.7 million instances, with numerous mentions in recent months as the debate on health care reform heated up. What you won’t find are many articles questioning whether the statistic is true.

Enter the Wall Street Journal’s “Numbers Guy,” Carl Bialik, to deconstruct this damning statistic. First, it is based on a report released almost ten years ago. Second, this very report is based on out-of-date statistics that are incomplete and inaccurate.

The WHO ranking is composed of five criteria – life expectancy, responsiveness in providing diagnosis and treatment, inequality in health-care outcomes, inequality in responsiveness, and individual spending. The latter three proved to be the most controversial.

One huge issue was that the required data was not readily available for every nation; therefore, Bialik explains, WHO researchers would calculate the relationship between the five factors and whatever available numbers they could find. This means that literacy rates were sometimes used to approximate the quality of health care.

It is also difficult to create a ranking based on life expectancy when it is affected by a variety of factors outside of the heath-care system, such as diet and exercise habits, poverty, and homicide rate.

But wait, there’s more! According to an article from the Cato Institute, the data for each factor was collected from individual agencies and ministries. This creates inconsistencies in definition, reporting and methodology.

When individual spending is removed, the U.S. actually ranked much higher on the list. Bialik writes:

“…the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country’s health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.’s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.”

Click here to see a chart from the Wall Street Journal that shows health care rankings when spending is removed.


Why Stress Makes You Fat

October 23, 2009

Originally posted on our collaborative site, Ourblook.com

By Erika Schwartz, MD

A recent study in the American Journal of Epidemiology looked at data on 1,355 men and women who had their weight and stress levels measured in 1995 and again in 2004.

The findings showed that those who were overweight and obese packed on the pounds even more as time went by and stressors continued and increased.

Those who were thin stayed thin and according to the lead author Jason Block on faculty at Harvard, “The stress effect didn’t appear to impact normal-weight people, just those who were overweight and obese from the beginning of the study.”

The results of this study may be true but as Americans are getting fatter and sicker, we are faced with more problems than ever before.

We are suffering ever-growing rates of obesity and worsening health caused by weight problems.

Stress is a leading cause of this modern-day epidemic – brought about by our frenetic lifestyles or by financial worries from the economic recession.

Stress comes in two varieties:

Read the rest of this entry »


The CDC diagnoses swine flu by telephone

October 22, 2009

Every flu season doctors note that many people mistake having a bad cold for the flu, but that their symptoms, even if flu- like, do not mean they have the flu. So what do you think happened when the Centers for Disease Control called 10,000 people by phone and asked them if they had flu-like symptoms? Well, golly gosh, it turns out that one in five kids had “flu-like” symptoms in the past month (you know, the month when kids returned to school to give each other their germs).  The CDC claims that most of the kids probably had swine flu, which, naturally, led some people in medialand — The Los Angeles Times, MSNBC and several others who appear to have toned down their headlines during the day– to claim that they actually had swine flu.

But – cough – how could anyone possibly make an accurate diagnosis of swine flu over the phone, when so many people commonly refer to “cold-like” symptoms as having the flu? We have privileged access to our thoughts and feelings, and can tell a telephone interviewer with 100 percent accuracy whether we are happy or sad; but we cannot, alas, discern between viruses when we’re sick; we just know we’re sick with something.

Aside from the limits of self-diagnosis, a telephone survey of this kind is also prey to other kinds of bias, such as whether people were more inclined to affirm that they had flu-like symptons (rather than claim a mere cold) due to the proliferation of swine flu stories in the media.

The false certainty created by ‘guessurveying’ the  incidence of swine flu may well be designed to encourage parents to get their children vaccinated, but laudable ends are rarely well served by such obviously lame means.  It just makes the CDC look unscientific. And that’s the kind of development that can metastasize into full-blown lack of credibility, when, eventually, some news organization starts to ask awkward questions.

And despite the prevalence of stenography in the press, the CDC’s “guessurvey” comes a day after an  investigation by CBS News  found that the Centers told states to stop doing real testing for H1N1 in July — and to stop counting actual cases, decisions which the network reported left some public health experts perplexed. On top of that, CBS’s analysis of state data shows that H1N1 was less prevalent over the summer than expected  and that claims based on apparent symptoms and not actual testing — such as the alleged outbreak of swine flu at Georgetown University — were more likely to over-estimate the  incidence of disease.


Malcolm Gladwell’s advice to aspiring journalists

October 22, 2009

Author Malcolm Gladwell’s advice to future journalists is to avoid journalism programs. In an interview with TIME, he says:

“Aspiring journalists should stop going to journalism programs and go to some other kind of grad school. If I was studying today, I would go get a master’s in statistics, and maybe do a bunch of accounting courses and then write from that perspective. I think that’s the way to survive. The role of the generalist is diminishing. Journalism has to get smarter.”

You can read the full interview with Gladwell over at Time.com.


Palm Beach Post accuses Erin Brockovich of fishing for law firms

October 20, 2009

Apparently, no amount of any naturally occurring substance can be tolerated in our water supply; but if you can’t sue God,  Gaia, or the Cosmos, you can sign up – for free! – to sue Pratt and Whitney…  more


Anti-vaccination – a left wing disease?

October 20, 2009

Wired has published a dazzling and timely story on the rising toll of childhood diseases in the U.S. due to the increasing numbers of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. Author, Amy Wallace, correctly notes that this issue has bridged those on both sides of the political spectrum (we’ve observed vaccination being framed on the far right as some sort of tool of one-world health care, a division of one-world government); but the inescapable fact is that the anti-vaccination movement’s ringleaders are firmly on the liberal-left-Hollywood side of politics, which is a disaster for public health. Here’s how her article begins:

“To hear his enemies talk, you might think Paul Offit is the most hated man in America. A pediatrician in Philadelphia, he is the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. slams Offit as a ‘biostitute’ who whores for the pharmaceutical industry. Actor Jim Carrey calls him a profiteer and distills the doctor’s attitude toward childhood vaccination down to this chilling mantra: ‘Grab ‘em and stab ‘em.’ Recently, Carrey and his girlfriend, Jenny McCarthy, went on CNN’s Larry King Live and singled out Offit’s vaccine, RotaTeq, as one of many unnecessary vaccines, all administered, they said, for just one reason: ‘Greed.'”

It doesn’t matter that RotaTeq protects children against the Rotavirus, whose symptoms of severe diarrhoea lead to some half-a-million deaths per year, there is simply no reasoning against the anti-vax movement’s belief that big pharma is evil. So while many Democratic politicians would be appalled if asked to denounce evolution as a tool of “big science,” they appear happy to minister to the idea that vaccination is not scientific. As Wallace notes:

“There are anti-vaccine Web sites, Facebook groups, email alerts, and lobbying organizations. Politicians ignore the movement at their peril, and, unlike in the debates over creationism and global warming, Democrats have proved just as likely as Republicans to share misinformation and fuel anxiety.

US senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Chris Dodd of Connecticut have both curried favor with constituents by trumpeting the notion that vaccines cause autism. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a scion of the most famous Democratic family of all, authored a deeply flawed 2005 Rolling Stone piece called “Deadly Immunity.” In it, he accused the government of protecting drug companies from litigation by concealing evidence that mercury in vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids. The article was roundly discredited for, among other things, overestimating the amount of mercury in childhood vaccines by more than 100-fold, causing Rolling Stone to issue not one but a prolonged series of corrections and clarifications. But that did little to unring the bell.”

Wallace and Wired, by contrast, have produced a model of science journalism – the article needs to be read for one of the best descriptions of how virulent measles is once one person is infected, and for how elegantly and economically it manages to dispel so much patent nonsense put out by the anti-vax loons. We can only hope this article gets the National Magazine Award it so richly deserves, that it shames Arianna Huffington and her friends (who have turned the Huffington Post into a venue for all manner of anti-vax vapidity), and that those on the liberal left stop patting themselves on the head for not being creationists, and realize that left-liberal irrationality might actually do more harm than Bush’s war on science ever did.

Our favorite surgeon blogger comments here


Men have potty hands

October 16, 2009

Happy belated Global Handwashing Day (it was officially October 15th, but really shouldn’t this be a holiday that is observed everyday?). And what better way to celebrate than with a new study by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine that finds only one-third of men wash their hands with soap after using the bathroom, compared to two-thirds of women.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Public Health, are based on a study of  250,000 people in Britain whose use of soap in restrooms was monitored with sensors over a period of 32 days. Also examined was the effectiveness of various handwashing reminders which were displayed on LED screens at the entrance of the lavatories.

The most effective reminder was found to be “Is the person next to you washing with soap?” When this message was displayed, the use of soap jumped 12 percent for men and 11 percent for women, suggesting that if you make people feel like they are being watched, they’ll be more likely to comply with a directive. Gross is also good, if you are a man, with messages such as “soap it off or eat it later” eliciting higher response rates; women, however, responded better to simple reminders.

The importance of handwashing should not be underestimated. The study’s authors write:

“Handwashing with soap has been ranked the most cost-effective intervention for the worldwide control of disease…It could save more than a million lives a year from diarrhoeal diseases, and prevent respiratory infections – the biggest causes of child mortality in developing countries.”

Now, as one of the tested reminders commands, please “don’t be a dirty soap dodger” and go wash your hands. Or maybe they meant you should avoid dirty soap? Either way, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has several helpful handwashing tips.


Exploding the exploding Pyrex rumor

October 15, 2009

Urban myth debunker Snopes.com set the Internet alight with its pronouncement that Pyrex really does explode. And then it backtracked. STATS explains why Snopes got it wrong here.


The baby name code

October 14, 2009

New research claims that parents, at least in the U.S., choose baby names on the basis of social “momentum,” whether the name is rising or falling in popularity. Todd Gureckis, a professor of psychology at NYU, and Robert Goldstone, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Indiana University, say this new research sheds light on how individual decisions are influenced by group behavior:

“Our results give support to the idea that individual naming choices are in a large part determined by the social environment that expecting parents experience… Like the stock market, cycles of boom and bust appear to arise out of the interactions of a large set of agents who are continually influencing one another.”

The research shows that this baby-naming pattern is relatively recent. Using records provided by the U.S. Social Security Administration, the researchers observed that from 1880 to 1905, the popularity of a name fluctuated from year to year.

However, more recently a different pattern has emerged. Names that experience increasing popularity one year, tend to increase even more the next, allowing the name to steadily gain momentum. The reverse is true for names declining in popularity. As Gureckis and Goldstone note:

“Parents in the United States are increasingly sensitive to the change in frequency of a name in recent time, such that names that are gaining in popularity are seen as more desirable than those that have fallen in popularity in the recent past… This bias then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: names that are falling continue to fall while names on the rise reach new heights of popularity, in turn influencing a new generation of parents.”

This study is published in the journal Topics of Cognitive Science.


Ourblook Interview on Social Media

October 13, 2009

Originally posted on our collaborative site, Ourblook.

OurBlook interview with Armen Berjikly, founder of ExperienceProject.comhttp://www.experienceproject.com

How do reporters use social media to send out information to people they want to receive it, and to gather sources and content? Which media do they use, and is it easy?

AB: Many reporters and media outlets have begun utilizing popular social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to distribute their content beyond traditional means such as print or media outlet websites. For example: you can now follow many of the nation’s top news outlets like CNN or Fox News on Twitter … they push out news content throughout the day. Because of Twitter’s ability to reach followers almost instantly via mobile phones, news outlets have found it to be an extremely effective tool for announcing breaking stories. In the “old” days, you had to wait until the 6 o’clock news or tomorrow’s newspaper for breaking news … now news is reported almost as fast as it happens.

As social networking is being used more and more to distribute news, it is also being used to collect sources and content. Many local and national news outlets frequently utilize YouTube for covering various general interest “fluff” pieces like funniest animal moments, clever user generated content or most recently helping create international stardom as in the case of Susan Boyle, a singer on the popular television show “Britain’s Got Talent” whose unbelievable voice (and accompanying media coverage) made her one of Google’s most searched-on names this summer. In addition, the near real-time aspect of social media coupled with (in many cases) the ability to offer tips and information while remaining completely anonymous has evolved true investigative reporting into more of a duel effort.


How do reporters use social media to receive information? If there are replies coming in from dozens or hundreds or thousands of people, how can they be screened and arranged?

AB: Reporters who use Twitter at times utilize their follower tips or content through the direct messaging or the @ functionality on the site where followers can directly send news tips or messages. As for replies coming in from thousands of people, news teams have the option of sifting through all responses searching for the best content (which many of the national news outlets do because of their larger resources) or generate simple yes/no polls on various pressing topics like healthcare reform to get a general (non-scientific) consensus of opinions.

The media have frequently looked toward Experience Project to gather in-depth information or just-posted comments from our user base on a wide variety of topics ranging from living in a sexless marriage to surviving cancer or thoughts on time sensitive events like Michael Jackson’s death.

Do you know of any specific stories that social media have been instrumental in developing for newspapers or TV stations or online sites?

AB: Yes, the Susan Boyle phenomenon is a classic case of how social networking and video sharing transformed an unknown person into a media darling. MMA fighter Kimbo Slice is another recent example of how social media helped turn a man whose popular street fighting videos were splashed all over YouTube and competing video sharing sites into one of the most recognizable names in the sport.

Do you foresee much impact from social media in major news operations such as newspapers and TV news, or in the future of journalism generally?

AB: Absolutely. Social media gauges people’s interest to certain news stories in a way never before possible, and in many cases, can even create or bolster neglected stories that would unexpectedly resonate with a larger audience.

Which forms of social media do you think will endure, and why? Are there any you see as fads that will fade away?

AB: Social media as a whole tap into fundamental needs of people … to communicate with friends, to meet like-minded people, and to intelligently disseminate information each individual finds interesting. I think the aspects of it that are more sensitive to trends are participating in social media with the goal of others’ consumption, as opposed to personal satisfaction. For example, blogging for an audience (vs. using it as a more public version of a personal diary) requires a significant and continuous time investment to nurture an audience. While many people are enamored with the concept of having their own blog and start with enthusiasm, most give up in short order.

Is there anything else you’d like to say about social media?

AB: At its core, social media’s goal is the same as ours: harnessing technology to connect people who can make each other’s lives a better place. Experience Project sees itself as a powerful complement to the range of social media options, hosting longer-lasting, substantial content that captures the very essence of our members’ lives, and serves as a beacon of exploration, knowledge and even hope to readers into the future.

Editor’s Note: Armen calls ExperienceProject.com the world’s largest social networking site for sharing life experiences.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35 other followers